17
June 2004
2. "Controversy Brews Over Transitional Iraqi Legal System", Iraqi Kurds and other minorities are feeling especially vulnerable.
3. "Turkey's loss", Turkey has been known to cast its gaze both eastward and westward. At times it aspires for recognition as a European nation, as its frustrated attempts to attain EU membership indicate.
4. "The Specter That Is Haunting Europe", A specter is haunting Europe: the specter of Turkey knocking on the doors of the recently expanded union of 25 nations. Should the European Union open its door or should it find another pretext for keeping Turkey out?
5. "Analysis: Plan 'B' for Turkey", After dangling the prospect of admission into the Brussels club for more than a decade, the European Union will decide by next December whether or not to admit Turkey.
6. "Turkey seeking ways to get round Cyprus recognition", Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul has sent a letter to the EU suggesting ways to get around the recognition problem of including Cyprus in a customs union, said reports yesterday.
1.
- AFP - "EU to welcome Turkish reforms, warn more needed:
draft":
BRUSSELS / June 16, 2004
EU leaders are to hail recent progress on reforms by Turkey, but
stress Ankara still has to do more to win a green light to start EU
entry talks, according to draft conclusions for an EU summit Thursday.
"The (EU) welcomes the significant progress made by Turkey in
the reform process, including the important and wide-ranging constitutional
amendments adopted in May," said the draft for the two-day summit
starting Thursday.
"In this context, the (EU) emphasises the importance of concluding
the remaining legislative work and of accelerating efforts to ensure
decisive
progress in the full and timely implementation of reforms at all levels
of administration and throughout the country," it added.
Last month, Turkish President Ahmet Necdet Sezer signed into law a
number of constitutional amendments aimed at bringing his country
closer to EU
standards of democracy.
The amendments were welcomed by the EU, which will assess Turkey's
reform process in December, based on a report to be presented by the
European Commission, and decide whether it should start accession
talks.
If it gives the green light, "the EU will open accession negotiations
with Turkey without delay," it added.
The text highlighted several areas in which Turkey still needed to
make changes including strengthening the independence of the judiciary,
protecting
of fundamental freedoms and cultural rights, and aligning civil-military
relations with European practice.
It added that Ankara must still demonstrate its commitment to economic
and financial stabilisation.
2. - Voice of America - "Controversy Brews Over Transitional Iraqi Legal System":
16 June 2004
Iraqi officials are taking more control of their country ahead of the official June 30 handover. However, a political controversy is already brewing over how the transitional administration law (TAL), will govern Iraq until a more permanent constitution is written. Iraqi Kurds and other minorities are feeling especially vulnerable.
A U.N. Security Council resolution passed earlier this month has endorsed a federal system for Iraq, after the handover. "The federalism in theory permits shared rule for some purposes and self-rule through state or provincial governments for other purposes all within the confines of a single, political system," legal scholar Dave Wippman of Cornell University explained.
A federal system had been outlined in a transitional administrative law drawn up last March, but that law was not mentioned in the U.N. resolution, which has Iraqi Kurds and other minority groups worried. A federal system could ensure that Iraqi Kurds who dominate the country's three northern provinces would continue to exercise the autonomy they have enjoyed for the past dozen years.
Minister of State Mahmoud Othman had this to say. "Everybody witnesses that this is a model and a good thing," he said. "And it could be a good thing for the rest of Iraq because there is stability and sort of democracy also. So, they can't go again in to Iraqi unity as such without having some guarantees. They can't accept again to be citizens of second degree."
Mr. Othman, himself a Kurd, says those guarantees were enshrined in the transitional administrative law (TAL). Kurdish leaders fully expected the TAL would be incorporated into the U.N. Security Council Resolution endorsing Iraq's transition to full sovereignty.
However, the Bush administration did not include it in its draft. It is not in the final resolution either.
That has infuriated Kurdish leaders who have threatened to pull out of the central government unless the interim law is fully implemented and their rights guaranteed.
Mr. Othman echoes some legal experts who say leaving the so-called interim constitution out of the U.N. resolution undermines its international legitimacy.
"There are a lot of important things in that law, a lot of consensus on how to resolve the Kurdish problems, how to have the bill of rights for Iraqis, women's rights, human rights, separation of power, how to end ethnic cleansing, many things," he added. "It's not only for Kurds, it's for Iraqis all together."
Iraq's new Prime Minister Iyad Allawi rushed to assure Iraqis that the TAL will serve as law. Kurds and other minority groups are not so sure.
Kurdish leaders are counting on the administrative law to serve as a basis for a more permanent constitution, because of its emphasis on protecting Kurdish autonomy. Kurds fear the Shiite Muslim majority could vote for an Islamic state that would frown on any degree of self-rule for the mostly secular Kurdish north.
The transitional law provides for veto power over the final constitution if two thirds of any three provinces vote against it.
The top Shiite Muslim cleric in Iraq, Ayatollah Ali Sistani, objected to the clause on the grounds it would give the Kurds too much influence over the final constitution. The Kurds argue the rule applies to any three provinces and could give Shiite dominated provinces influence too.
Law professor Noah Feldman, who helped draft the transitional law, sees the political dispute over future Kurdish rights as a reflection of the larger debate over minority rights in general.
"And the debate that we've seen in the last ten days and the debate we're going to see over the question of Kurdistan in the constitutional debates that are forthcoming, in part reflect a legitimate and real debate about protecting minority rights and the balancing of those minority rights against majoritarianism in a democracy," he said.
Iraqis won't begin writing a permanent constitution for several months.
First a national conference will be assembled to select the group that will put together the framework and procedures to elect a legislature that will eventually write a constitution and government framework.
Kurdish politician Othman argues that discarding or revising the transitional administrative law would be a dangerous undertaking during a very fragile political process.
At this point, he says, Iraqis are talking past each other, not to each other. Still, Mr. Othman remains optimistic a compromise to satisfy an anxious and deeply suspicious populace will be found.
"There are problems, definitely positive and negative aspects. But I think there's room for dialogue to try to reach some common points," he explained.
If not, Mr. Othman warns, Iraq's transition could quickly deteriorate
into divisive political squabbling or civil war. And that, he says,
is something that war-weary Iraqis want to avoid at all costs.
3. - Jerusalem Post - "Turkey's loss":
June 16, 2004
Turkey has been known to cast its gaze both eastward and westward. At times it aspires for recognition as a European nation, as its frustrated attempts to attain EU membership indicate.
The week, however, Turkey donned its other persona, its Islamic one, underscoring its ambition to become a leading Islamic power. This is the third time Turkey hosts the international conference of Muslim foreign ministers, in which 57 countries are represented.
That may possibly account for the serial attacks on Israel emanating of late from NATO's single Muslim member. On Tuesday, addressing the parliamentary faction of his Islamic political movement, Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan went so far as to blame Israel's government for "increasing anti-Semitism all over the world," as if anti-Semitism needs the pretext of Jewish provocation and wouldn't otherwise flourish.
We would like to hope that Erdogan isn't leading Israel's sole regional ally down anti-Semitism's dark path. However, his latest comments hardly seem like slips of the tongue. He presented an entire thesis to his audience, including the assertion that Israel's self-defense is somehow unfair, because "while Palestinians use stones, Israeli helicopters rain down bombs." This, of course, is demagoguery, when nearly 1,000 Israelis have been indiscriminately slain in an unprovoked onslaught of suicide terrorism. Turkey itself has recently experienced the wrath of such suicide bombers and has captured a boatload of weaponry from Ukraine, including rockets, bound in all likelihood to the very Gazans whom Erdogan prefers to paint as unarmed underdogs.
His pronouncements cannot be excused by ignorance. He knows better. Turkey itself has shown no mercy to its own terrorists and has dealt with them extremely harshly, though they hardly pose the existential threat that Israel faces. It is telling that the PKK terrorists whom Turkey recently defeated were based in Syria, the same place as many of the terrorists fighting Israel.
Israel merits much better from Turkey. This is no reward for the tourist income Turkey receives from numerous Israelis, for strategic cooperation, even for plans to import Turkish water at exorbitant cost. Nevertheless, Turkey recently cancelled a defense tender in which the IAI was a leading bidder. Earlier this month it briefly recalled its ambassador.
But above all is the undeserved ill will fuelled by repeated verbal assaults against Israel. These began with bizarre accusations that Israel was agitating among northern Iraq's Kurds. Then came a barrage of condemnation against Israel's targeting of terrorist kingpins. It reached a crescendo when Erdogan castigated Israel for targeting Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, as if it were an arbitrary hit that took place in a vacuum, with no background or reason. On another occasion, he accused Israel of practicing "state terrorism," particularly citing the Rafah operations.
Ankara, Erdogan claimed last month, was all set to mediate, "but Sharon buried Turkey's peace efforts with his assassinations." His foreign minister pooh-poohed Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's disengagement plan, on the grounds that "before Israel withdraws from Gaza, it'll kill Palestinians and destroy their homes. Israel decided to execute the entire Palestinian leadership without trial."
Like all countries, Israel is not immune to criticism, but Israel should not be subjected to criteria different from those applied to all other countries. When it is demanded of Israel, which confronts incomparable perils, that it cease even its very restrained response to mass murder with genocidal intent, the subtext is that Israel must behave as no other country would. If the citizens and government of the Jewish state are judged by a yardstick not applied to other lands and asked to suspend their right of self-defense, that constitutes anti-Semitism. The government should not let these insults pass in silence and act as if we would tolerate endless abuse without it affecting relations between our two countries.
Anti-Semitism has never helped any misguided nation which resorted to it. Does Turkey really want to join the Arab countries, for whom fomenting and tolerating anti-Semitism has become a calling card as surely as their lack of democratic government?
Turkey can be a beacon of enlightenment, tolerance, and progress
in a region that cries out for reform. It would be a great shame if
it regresses and misses its historic opportunity. It would first and
foremost be Turkey's loss.
4. - Arab News - "The Specter That Is Haunting Europe":
by Amir Taheri / 16 June 2004
A specter is haunting Europe: the specter of Turkey knocking on the
doors of the recently expanded union of 25 nations. Should the European
Union open its door or should it find another pretext for keeping
Turkey out?
The question is on the agenda of the European Union summit scheduled to take place in Dublin later this month.
As things stand chances of issuing an invitation for membership to Turkey appear slim. Several leading members of the union have already announced their intention to keep Turkey out, even if that means exercising their right of veto.
France’s President Jacques Chirac and Italy’s Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi might have no time for one another but are at one when it comes to opposing Turkey’s application. German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder is less forthright in his opposition. But he, too, has chosen to play the anti-Turkish card if only not to be outdone by his Christian Democrat opponents at home. British Prime Minister Tony Blair is favorable to Turkey’s membership but is unlikely to go out of his way to actually fight for it.
The official arguments advanced against admitting Turkey into the European Union are well known.
Turkey, we are told, has a large peasantry that could bankrupt the union by demanding subsidies under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). But that argument fades when we note that the CPA has already reached a dead-end with the admission of new members from Central and Eastern Europe and mounting pressure for the removal of farm subsidies as the last impediment to global free trade.
Another argument is that Turkey is not democratic enough to enter the union. This is true. It may take Turkey many more decades before it can be regarded as a mature democracy. But one must also note that membership of the European Union could accelerate the process of democratization as it did in Portugal and Greece and is doing in the formerly Communist states.
Turkey made its first moves toward Europe in the 1970s and started its pursuit of full membership in the 1980s. The Europeans reacted by demanding massive economic, political and social reforms as a means of delaying serious negotiations about the Turkish application. Over the past two decades the Turks have patiently worked on a package of reforms, starting with a large dose of economic liberalization under Turgot Ozal. Under the previous center-left coalition government, Turkey started constitutional reforms designed to reduce the influence of the military in politics, and to improve human rights. The process has continued under the current center-right government of Recep Tayyip Erdogan with even greater determination.
And yet Turkey’s compliance with European demands, including some that were hard to swallow, appear to have had little effect on those who are determined to block its membership.
This is because those who oppose Turkey’s membership do so for ideological rather than political or economic reasons.
I raised the issue with Helmut Kohl, Germany’s former Chancellor at a breakfast in Paris just over a year ago. Kohl has been a consistent opponent of Turkey’s membership since the 1980s.
The fact that his son has married a Turkish lady has not changed his position.
Kohl asserted that the European Union was “an association of nations with a Christian heritage” and that Turkey, a nation with “an Islamic heritage”, had no place in it.
Slightly later I heard a similar argument from Valery Giscard d’Estaing, a French former president after a session of the European constitution committee in London. “Turkey belongs to a different civilization,” Giscard asserted. “As a Muslim society, Turkey will not be at home in Europe.”
I admire Kohl and Giscard for having the courage to speak their minds, even though doing so when one is out of power is that much easier.
They are saying aloud what most European leaders think in silence. Turkey means Islam and Islam is the code word for ancestral fears in Europe. But is this enough to shut Turkey out of the union? Not at all.
To start with the claim that the European Union is a Christian club is both false and dangerous. In the 25 member states of the union, no more than 30 percent of the population describe themselves as practising Christians. If the religion of one’s birth is the yardstick, the union is home to some 20 million Muslims. In fact, Islam is the second largest religion throughout the union. There are also almost two million Jews and millions of European converts to a variety of other creeds, from Buddhism to the many currently fashionable sects. Europe today is one big supermarket of religions and political ideologies in which the choice is left with the individual not the state.
European democracy is supposed to be based on the separation of church and state. Thus the union cannot, and does not, have any religion of its own. To use Christianity as a means of inventing an exclusivist “identity” for Europeans is as dangerous as the Nazis’ use of the so-called race factor to distinguish Aryan “supermen” from other “subhuman” races.
The claim that Turkey is an “Islamic” state is manifestly wrong. The Turkish republic has no official religion and has been a secular state for almost eight decades, much longer than many of the members of the European Union. While almost 98 percent of Turks are born Muslims, virtually the entire cultural production of the Turkish nation — from poetry and philosophy to music and architecture — is secular.
For almost half a century Turkey served as Europe’s first line of defense against Soviet imperialism. (The Turkish Army was, and remains, the second largest within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) after the United States’.) And yet no one in France or Germany objected to being defended by “Muslim” soldiers” on the edges of Europe.
Paradoxically, Turkey’s membership of the European Union could be a godsend for all those who do not wish to see what was initially a free trade club transformed into a super-state. Kohl and Giscard dream of a United States of Europe, in which the many nationalities of the continent shall use their specific cultures and identities.
This is a dream that they share with many conquerors in history — from Charlemagne to Hitler and passing by Napoleon. They do not realize that Europe was able to create the modern world largely because of its diversity that allowed alternative spaces for innovation and, when necessary, scientific, religious and political dissent. Had Europe been one vast despotic empire, as Russia had been under the Tsars, it would not have been able to foster the pluralism that makes democracy and progress possible.
Turkey’s entry into the EU will re-emphasize the continent’s diversity, thus making it more difficult for the advocates of the European super-state to convince the voters to give up their national identities.
Those who want Europe to stay European must support Turkey’s
membership in the union.
5. - UPI - "Analysis: Plan 'B' for Turkey":
WASHINGTON / By Claude Salhani / 16 June 2004
After dangling the prospect of admission into the Brussels club for more than a decade, the European Union will decide by next December whether or not to admit Turkey. Either way, the answer, much as the topic, is going to be controversial given the complexity of the subject.
Part of the argument stems from the fact that Turkey, some say, is not really in Europe, nor is it culturally European, despite the fact that Mustapha Kemal -- or Ataturk -- the founder of modern Turkey, worked hard to turn the country away from its traditional Eastward-looking direction and identified it instead with Europe.
Ataturk banned the fez, the veil and dropped the Arabic alphabet in favor of Latin characters. Most Turkish leaders who followed him believe that Turkey's rightful place is in Europe. Working towards that goal, they set about to change the country, introducing reform and democracy. But many argue that the changes are not enough.
Advocates of admission argue that Turkey is changing -- and has been changing -- at a very fast pace. As a prerequisite to EU admission Turkey has made huge strides towards fulfilling the Copenhagen criteria, which state that an applying nation must achieve stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, practice the rule of law, respect human rights and show respect for, and protection of, minorities, including women and religious groups. It should have a functioning market economy as well as the capacity to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the Union.
While Turkey may have met most of the requirements, if not all, some Eurocrats continue to argue that it is not quite there. Laws have been passed, they say, but now need to be implemented. Opponents to Turkey's admission raise the issue of Kurdish rights, while supporters point to recent progress reached in that area; Kurds now have a radio program in their language. Admission to the EU, Turks argue, will help augment the pace of positive change.
But when you keep pressing, one of the main stumbling blocs for a number of Europeans, although few will openly admit it, is the issue of religious differences.
Some Euro-politicians are asking whether Europe's Christian culture risks being "diluted" once millions of Muslims suddenly enter what many Europeans still regard as largely a Christian club.
Turkey is 99.8 percent Muslim, with a population of some 68 million, almost twice that of Poland's 38 million. It currently trails behind Germany's 82 million, however, by some estimates Turkey will overtake Germany by 2020.
And that frightens a great many Europeans who dread a sudden influx of Muslims and how it will alter Europe's traditionally Christian culture. Already studies show that by 2020, Muslims will become the majority in some European cities, such as Rotterdam in the Netherlands.
But what would happen if Turkey's membership was again denied or "delayed?"
Addressing Turkey's prospects of joining the EU at a Washington conference on Tuesday, Saban Disli, deputy chairman of the Justice and Development Party -- Turkey's ruling party -- said that Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan "had no plan B" if Turkey's application was rejected next December. Instead, he said, Turkey would keep going after Plan A.
Well, here is a proposal for a Plan B, assuming Ankara is turned down, which is still a distinct possibility for a number of reasons: 90 percent of Turkey is physically not in Europe, a key requirement for membership; if admitted, Ankara would become the only "European" capital not to be geographically located in Europe; then there are the Kurdish and Cyprus issues.
So forget about "joining" the EU. Instead petition to structure a second-tier trading alliance between the EU, Turkey and other countries that meet the Copenhagen criteria.
This new alliance could offer Turkey (and other potential members) all existing advantages of EU membership -- except free travel of people between member states. In other words, Turkey would enjoy all the advantages offered by EU economic, farming, trade and customs agreements, but its citizens would not be permitted to settle and work in EU countries, except with work and residence permits. In essence, this would be no different than Europeans wishing to live and work in the United States.
Such a move would alleviate fears of nationalist (read far-right) political parties in Europe that have been campaigning against Turkey's integration into the EU, a move that could play to the detriment of all other political parties.
A benefit of Plan B is that it could easily be expanded to include countries, such as Switzerland and Norway, that don't necessarily want to join the EU, as well as those that have been knocking at Europe's door, such as Turkey and Morocco, and eventually why not Russia?
As democracy spreads in years to come, the EU could offer membership into the second-tier partnership program to newcomers such as Algeria, Tunisia and -- if one can be optimistic enough to envisage peace breaking out in the Middle East -- Lebanon, Syria, Israel and others as well could join.
Advocates of a trans-Atlantic rapprochement go a step further, suggesting
the second-tier option could include the United States, bringing it
into a tighter trade and cultural alliance with Europe. Washington
often sees Turkey as a bridge between East and West. Turkey could
well find its role enlarged to act as a link spanning the Atlantic,
as well.
6. - Cyprus Mail - "Turkey seeking ways to get round Cyprus recognition":
By Stefanos Evripidou / 17 June 2004
Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul has sent a letter to the EU suggesting ways to get around the recognition problem of including Cyprus in a customs union, said reports yesterday.
According to the English-language Turkish Daily News, Gul described measures to deal with the awkward situation of Turkey extending its customs union with all members of the EU, bar Cyprus, in the letter dated June 11.
The minister reportedly states that any measures taken to deal with this issue would be of a commercial nature and would not express a political position.
The letter contains technical steps that Turkey will take to avoid
criticism before the Commission prepares its progress report in October
on Turkey’s accession aspirations. This report will be seen as
critical to the final decision on starting accession negotiations
with Turkey to be taken at the European summit in December.
The non-inclusion of Cyprus in the customs union raised concern last
week, when the Turkish delegation in Brussels refused to acknowledge
Cyprus as an EU member, prompting the Commission to write a letter
to Ankara requesting they rectify the situation.
According to reports, the Irish Presidency had given Turkey until yesterday to respond or face inclusion of the matter in the text of the draft Presidency conclusions on the European summit tomorrow.
Leaving for Brussels yesterday, President Tassos Papadopoulos said: “Turkey will state today (yesterday) whether it will extend the (customs) agreement with Cyprus, which is our demand and that of the EU.”
Asked to comment on reports that Turkey was ready to recognise Cyprus but was only willing to use the name ‘Cyprus’ and not ‘Cyprus Republic’ to get around the customs issue, the President said the EU had its rules and it was not Turkey’s choice how it would progress.
Regarding the opening of a Cyprus embassy in Ankara, Papadopoulos
said the issue had not been examined yet.