1 October 2004

1. "Torture still an obstacle to Turkey's EU membership", two reports on Turkey's application to join the European Union point to potential benefits from its membership, but highlight continuing human rights violations and Ankara's failure to prevent "numerous" cases of torture and ill treatment.

2. "With EU on their side, Turkish women fight taboos", the women's movement in the country has grown stronger over the years, but discriminatory provisions enshrined in outdated laws came under the spotlight only after the EU warned Turkey that gender equality was as crucial to its membership bid as political issues.

3. "Turkey's leading man", the European Commission are about to issue a report on Turkey's readiness to start formal membership negotiations with the European Union, but Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan must try to consolidate the secular-religious divide.

4. "Turkey's Top General Encourages Acceptance Of Reforms", Turkey boosted its chances of joining the European Union by recently overhauling its criminal code. The Turkish parliament might never have gotten the opportunity to vote on the reform package, however, had it not been for quiet changes taking place within Turkey’s military hierarchy.

5. "Why Europe became serious about Turkey", the suspense is mounting. Next week the European Commission will issue its opinion on Turkey's fitness to join the European Union.

6. "EU study backs Turkey membership", the EU executive Commission says in a study that Turkey's membership of the European Union could offer economic and political benefits to both sides.

7. "Kurds quietly build strength", Iraq's Kurds are working quietly to consolidate their position and be ready for trouble when it comes their way. The present savage fighting and political turmoil is all from the central and southern areas of the country, not the Kurdish controlled north of Iraq.

8. "Making a United Cyprus 'Workable'", Cyprus has had a big year.

1. - The Independent - "Torture still an obstacle to Turkey's EU membership":

BRUSSELS / 1 October 2004 / by Stephen Castle in Brussels

Two reports on Turkey's application to join the European Union point to potential benefits from its membership, but highlight continuing human rights violations and Ankara's failure to prevent "numerous" cases of torture and ill treatment.

The carefully balanced documents, to be released next week, pave the way for the European Commission to recommend the start of EU membership negotiations but with tougher conditions than for any other candidate country.

One strong possibility is that the European Commission, which must finalise its recommendation next Wednesday, will include a specific warning to Ankara that it will break off negotiations at any time if progress is not made on specific policy areas.

With its mainly Muslim population of 70 million and areas of acute poverty, Turkey's attempt to join the EU is highly controversial. Ankara needs to meet the so-called Copenhagen criteria on human rights in order to start talks on EU membership, which are expected to take up to 10 years to complete.

The documents the commission will release are an assessment of Turkey's progress and a separate impact study on the effects of its membership. These will be crucial in influencing EU heads of government who decide in December whether to start talks. Leaders of most of the big countries want to start negotiations, though public opinion is divided.

The impact study gives only vague figures, arguing that the timescale of the enlargement makes precision impossible. It puts the total cost of Turkish membership from 2025 between €16.5bn (£11.3bn) to €27.9bn (£19.2) in 2004 prices per year. That corresponds to between 0.1 and 0.17 per cent of the EU's gross domestic product at 2025 levels, although existing member states would still benefit slightly from the increased wealth generated.

But the annual progress report, covering human rights issues, is perhaps more sensitive. The EU Enlargement Commissioner, Günther Verheugen, has already hinted that Ankara has made sufficient progress to begin talks by saying that torture in Turkey is no longer "systematic".

However, the Commission's work underlines the need for thorough monitoring of Turkish detention centres to ensure that torture is eradicated. The document says that, between January and June this year, 388 human rights violations were filed, including complaints of torture and ill-treatment.

It argues: "The government is seriously pursuing its policy of zero tolerance in its fight against torture. However, numerous cases of torture and ill-treatment continue to occur and further efforts will be required to eradicate such practices."

In a separate reference it adds that "government policy of zero tolerance and serious efforts to implement reform have led to a decline in the practice of torture".

It says that progress on combating inequality since 1999 has been limited, freedom of expression is improved but difficulties remain, and that "corruption remains a very serious problem in Turkey".

2. - AFP - "With EU on their side, Turkish women fight taboos":

ANKARA / 1 October 2004 / by Sibel Utku Bila

When hundreds of women marched on parliament last month against plans to criminalize adultery, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan was so angry he called them "marginals" who do not represent the true Turkish woman.

Days later, women scored a major victory in this male-dominated, Muslim society: yielding to European Union pressure, Erdogan's government dropped plans to jail errant spouses and rushed through parliament a reform package that introduced ground-breaking rights for women.

"It is a triumph for us, a great leap forward," said Hulya Gulbahar, one of the leaders of a platform of women activists who fought a fierce battle for the amendments to the penal code reform.

Turkish women have been part of the political life since the founding father of the republic, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, granted them suffrage rights in 1934, years before women in France, Italy, Belgium, Greece and Switzerland, for instance, were allowed to vote.

In urban areas they are today emancipated to the point of claiming jobs as football referees and fighter pilots.

The majority, however, is still in the grip of die-hard patriarchal traditions that, in some regions, go as far as to approve "honor killings" -- the murder of female family members perceived as unvirtuous.

The women's movement in the country has grown stronger over the years, but discriminatory provisions enshrined in outdated laws came under the spotlight only after the EU warned Turkey that gender equality was as crucial to its membership bid as political issues.

"The EU process had an accelerating impact," Gulbahar said. "We would expect the EU to make even clearer reminders to the government in the future."

Among other amendments, the new penal code introduced life terms for perpetrators of "honor killings," criminalized spouse rape, defined systematic domestic violence as a kind of torture and toughened penalties for incest.

It also weeded out from the books an infamous article that allowed rapists to go unpunished if they agreed to marry their victim.

For some activists, however, the changes are just a small part of the job.

"The problem in our region is that people do not respect the official laws," said Nebahat Akkoc from Diyarbakir, the biggest city of the mainly Kurdish southeast. "We have to change mentalities and ensure that the laws are implemented."

A former primary school teacher, Akkoc is a genuine taboo-breaker -- she is the founder and head of a women's center which has rebelled against the "honor killings" that plague the region where feudal traditions still prevail, and where 55 percent of women are illiterate.

Under the much-decried practice of "honor killings," relatives convene a so-called "family council" and name a clan member to murder a woman relative considered to have stained their honor, usually by engaging in an extra-marital affair.

But the practice has gone as far as killing women for conversing with strangers or requesting a song on the radio -- even for being the victims of rape.

In one chilling incident this year, a 22-year-old woman who bore a child out of wedlock was shot dead by her brothers in her hospital sickbed where she was under treatment after having survived a first murder attempt by her siblings.

Akkoc's center, KA-MER -- an acronym for Women's Center -- has so far helped protect 45 threatened women. It has failed to save two others. Activists hope the new laws will help their struggle.

"The job is not over," Gulbahar said. "Our eye is now on the judges. How they will implement the amendments is very important."

Although they succeeded in imposing most of their demands in the new penal code, women's groups have vowed to fight on for a few other amendments they failed to have enacted.

Among them: a total ban on virginity tests, once ordered on women almost at will by any authority and now subject to court order.

3. - BBC - "Turkey's leading man":

The European Commission are about to issue a report on Turkey's readiness to start formal membership negotiations with the European Union, but Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan must try to consolidate the secular-religious divide.

30 September 2004 / by Chris Morris

Dressed in a dark suit, a man staggered along the street and slumped against the gate. His face was a picture of misery.

Waiting inside the house was a woman whose life was about to be turned upside down.

"Cut!," cried the director. "The sun's just gone in".

In a quiet suburb of Istanbul they were filming the latest episode of World of Mysteries.

Broadcast on a conservative TV channel, it is a drama series that has become a big hit over the last couple of years.

Each week viewers who have had their fill of pop videos and game shows can watch a morality tale with religious themes, based on the real life experience of miracles.

It is, according to the producer Mustafa Kartal, the authentic voice of the people.

"Maybe they're fed up with what they see on the other channels," he mused. "Whereas we believe Allah is judging us and that's reflected in everything we do".

On the set behind us an estate agent was coming to terms with the error of his ways, convinced he had been punished by God after tricking a poor family into giving up their home.

"If you do bad things, bad things happen to you," Mustafa observed, as the actors hammed up the drama. "But people always have the chance to change, and if you do good things, you'll be rewarded,"

Compatibility

Miracles, the chance to change.

I wonder what Tayyip Erdogan would have made of that.

Back in 1999 Turkey's most ambitious politician, a devout Muslim, was sent to prison for inciting religious hatred.

You can still see the evidence in grainy video footage of a speech he gave in a small south-eastern town.

"The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets", he thunders, "the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers."

This rousing Islamist poem was followed by a warning that anyone trying to stifle prayer in Turkey would face an erupting volcano.

For Turkey's powerful establishment, it was all too much.

The charismatic Erdogan was seen as a threat to the strict secular tradition established by the country's founding father Kemal Ataturk.

But five years on, Erdogan is transformed. He is not only a free man, but Turkey's prime minister, armed with a huge parliamentary majority, and seeking to start membership talks with the European Union.

The true believer now says he wants to prove that Islam can go hand in hand with greater democratic freedoms.

It all means working with the very forces that put him behind bars, who say they are protecting Turkey from religious extremism.

But can they ever find common ground, on matters as profound as freedom and faith?

Motive

When I spoke to Tayyip Erdogan he was tired.

It was near the end of another gruelling political day. But this is what he dreamt about, he said, when he was in prison; his desire to serve his people.

Erdogan told me that he has changed, that prison matured and revitalised him.

In the last two years he has passed more democratic reforms than previous Turkish governments have managed in two decades, and yet the suspicions still linger.

"Some people", I suggested rather unhelpfully, "still think you're a fundamentalist".

The prime minister fixed me with his hard stare.

"We're fed up with accusations like this," he frowned. "We're not a party based on religious values."

But it is a question which continues to haunt him. Is he practising political "takkiye", the idea that a Muslim can hide his real opinion to gain a practical advantage?

His record suggests that he is not, or if he is, then he is a far better actor than anyone who appears on World of Mysteries.

'Politics and piety'

Many Turkish commentators speak of him as a pragmatist, as a man who knows there are lines which cannot be crossed. But his political opponents are not convinced.

Why does he always mention religion in his speeches, they ask?

Why is he appointing senior bureaucrats who do not like the secular system?

And why, recently, did he create a crisis with the EU by supporting plans to criminalise adultery?

The answer, at least to that last question, is that Tayyip Erdogan is trying to be all things to all men.

Many of his supporters are religious conservatives and he is under as much pressure from them as he is from European politicians or Turkish generals.

He was in the process of finalising a major reform of Turkey's penal code - increasing penalties for torture, and for violence against women - so why not make adultery illegal as well, just to keep everyone happy?

He miscalculated.

The idea may have gone down well in the conservative heartland, but for European politicians and Turkish secularists, it was a nod in the direction of Islamic law.

So the pragmatist took a step back, and the plans were withdrawn. But his critics were already in full flow.

Pragmatic perhaps, they sniff, but he mixes his politics with piety.

'The great divide'

Bedri Baykam is one of Turkey's most famous artists and an outspoken defender of the secular nationalism which has been official Turkey's answer to religion for decades.

"Maybe the adultery law will open a few eyes," he said, leaning across the table towards me, his Ataturk badge gleaming under the cafe lights.

"With Erdogan", he said, "it's a case of there he goes again, he can't help himself - it's just like the headscarf."

Ah yes, the headscarf. An expression of religious faith, or a statement of menacing political intent? It is the symbol of the great divide.

Thousands of Turkish women cannot attend university or work in public buildings because they refuse to remove their scarves.

Tayyip Erdogan has tried and failed to change the law, and for him, it is an issue close to home.

His wife Emine is in effect banned from formal state occasions because of her scarf. And when she represents Turkey abroad - at the opening ceremony of the Olympics - secular columnists grind their teeth and squirm in their seats.

Mr Erdogan's daughters cover their hair as well.

When one of them, Esra, was married this summer all manner of stylish Islamic attire was on display. It was a big social event, with the prime minister of Greece turning up as the guest of honour.

But Turkey's secular president, Ahmet Necdet Sezer, sent his regrets. Too many headscarves.

Consolidation

In the end it all comes down to what secularism really means. For the old elite, it is the strict separation of mosque and state.

But for Tayyip Erdogan and those who support him it means freedom for all religions to act as they please. Does he think he can he find a balance between the two?

"Religion shouldn't interfere with issues of government", he said carefully, "but government shouldn't interfere with issues of religion either. That's the message we're trying to spread".

A couple of days later I was sitting by the Bosphorus drinking tea, watching the boats come and go: trawlers heading towards the Black Sea; small ferries taking commuters back to Istanbul's Asian shore; cruise ships full of tourists; freighters, pleasure boats and huge oil tankers from Russia en route to the Mediterranean and world markets beyond.

Every one heading in a different direction, and somehow avoiding multiple collisions.

Tayyip Erdogan faces a similar challenge from the competing forces pulling Turkey down different paths.

His solution is the European Union: the best guarantee, he believes, of freedom for everyone; the best way to bridge the secular-religious divide.

His admirers abroad - Tony Blair and George Bush among them - have more than a passing interest in whether he can actually succeed in changing Turkey for the better.

The internal debate about politics and religion has much broader implications as well.

Why? Well, if a country which borders Iran, Iraq and Syria can prove that Islam and greater democracy can flourish together, then that matters; the fundamentalists lose.

If Turkey can get a date for starting membership talks with the European Union then that sends another powerful signal, that there does not have to be a clash of civilisations.

Kurdish question

There is a lot riding on how the Erdogan experiment turns out.

His strategy for the moment seems to be trying to keep most of the people happy most of the time. It is that old question of balance again.

But his biggest democratic challenge lies hundreds of kilometres east of Istanbul, in the Kurdish heartland.

I had not been to Diyarbakir, the main city in south-eastern Turkey, for several years. But at first it felt like I had never been away.

Within minutes of stepping out onto the street my old friends, the plain clothes police, had tracked us down.

"Who are you? What are you doing here? Why did you come? Where's your permission?" they said. I almost felt nostalgic.

"I don't need permission from you any more," I protested. "The state of emergency has been lifted." (Cue much muttering into radios and checking of press cards, before they backed off.)

We then piled into our car and headed for the edge of town to watch some local politicians planting a few saplings. A "peace forest" was what they called it.

It did not appear to be an imminent threat to national security, but our plain-clothes friends were there again, filming away, spying on their own citizens.

Do they have reason to feel jumpy?

Well, in recent months fighting has flared up again between the Turkish army and the Kurdish rebel movement, now known as Kongra-Gel, better known as the PKK.

But the vast majority of people in the south-east have no interest in a return to civil war.

They need help from the state, not suspicion; help to return to villages from which they were forcibly evacuated by the armed forces.

A few families have already gone back to the village of Kebabci. There they live among the ruins, sleeping on the floor in the few houses which still have roofs.

Through a lawyer they have applied for compensation from the state. Until they get it they are stuck in economic limbo, no longer in exile, but not fully at home.

Censorship

So it feels like a period of transition.

There are plenty of examples of how some things have changed and others have stayed the same.

Laws have been passed allowing private language schools to offer lessons in Kurdish, which was unthinkable just a few years ago.

But there have been bureaucratic obstacles - there always are - as one school was denied permission to open for a long time because its door was a couple of centimetres too narrow.

Or take the case of Gun TV, a local station in Diyarbakir, trying to take advantage of new law which - on paper - allows broadcasting in Kurdish.

When I visited Gun TV's tiny studios a Syrian Kurdish singer was the star attraction of the night, ululating his way through a series of mournful ballads.

As he was busy comparing the woman he loved with the country he loved, the channel's general manager Zeynel Dogan tried to explain the rules of the game.

"At the moment our artist here, he can sing in Kurdish but we can't present the programme in Kurdish. So you can sing but you can't speak."

Confused? I was, and so apparently was Gun TV.

It has just been shut down for a month for breaking the law, and its application to broadcast properly in Kurdish is "still being evaluated" by authorities unaccustomed to rapid change.

In other words, there is partial freedom.

Turkey may be a Muslim democracy but down in Diyarbakir it is still a flawed one.

The EU says it hopes reforms aimed at the Kurds so far are only the beginning. There is much more work to be done.

People power

Then there are broader human rights concerns: torture, discrimination, restrictions on freedom of expression.

There are still deep-rooted problems, but also some signs that the mentality may be changing. The idea that the state has more rights than the people is gradually being revised.

Listen for example to the views of Metin Munir, one of the most intelligent of writers on Turkish issues. I went to see him in his old wooden house a short walk from the Asian shore of the Bosphorus.

"When I was writing something I used to be really scared", he said, "scared that I could be sent to jail. Now all of that has gone away."

Implementation of reforms, he suggested, may be slow, but people are beginning to realise that they have more rights than they did before. And that may be Tayyip Erdogan's greatest achievement.

There are still secular Turks who fear for their future, who worry that Ataturk's legacy is being dismantled bit by bit.

But the majority want more change not less; they are tired of the old ways. And for now, they think Tayyip Erdogan, with his dream of Europe, is the best man to provide.

4. - Eurasianet - "Turkey's Top General Encourages Acceptance Of Reforms":

30 September 2004 / by Soli Ozel*

Turkey boosted its chances of joining the European Union by recently overhauling its criminal code. The Turkish parliament might never have gotten the opportunity to vote on the reform package, however, had it not been for quiet changes taking place within Turkey’s military hierarchy.

The annual rotation of top officers in the Turkish Armed Forces occurs on August 30. The decisions as to who will be promoted, reassigned or retired are made by the Higher Military Council (HMC), which meets at the beginning of August for three days and reviews individual files. For the top appointments there is hardly ever any surprise since a pattern is established at least a few years in advance. Given the military’s status as the guarantor of Turkey’s secular tradition, the country’s civilian leadership, including the prime minister who presides over the deliberations, has traditionally had little or no say in the HMC’s decisions.

It is widely accepted that this year’s HMC finally allowed incumbent Chief of the General Staff Hilmi Özkök to install his own team. Özkök, now in his third year in the post, has a reformist reputation, and has maneuvered the military into a politically less intrusive posture. As chief of staff, Özkök has presented a different profile than his predecessors -- punctuated by respect for civilian authority, by an emphasis on the need for institutional reform, and, lately, by his acknowledgement that the military does not have a monopoly on patriotism.

Özkök’s influence already is readily evident. Despite the misgivings of some top officers, he has supported the government’s efforts to prepare Turkey for the EU accession process. He also discreetly has assented to the government’s extraordinary diplomatic opening on the Cyprus issue, helping Turkey gain diplomatic good will.

The annual rotation of officers is subject to scrutiny in Turkey – and for good reason. The Turkish military retains a special and powerful position in Turkey’s political order. The country is still governed, for instance, by a constitution written by and for the military in 1982. In the 1990s, amid a violent Kurdish separatist struggle, virtually all political issues were turned to security issues, thus creating a broad space for the military to intervene in politics. During that time, the military forced an Islamist-led government from power. It did so by mobilizing public opinion, and exerting great pressure on the government, including the threat of a real coup.

Since the removal of the Islamist government in 1997, Turkey’s political climate has changed dramatically, as the correlation of power between the civilians and the military has shifted in favor of the former. The EU accession process has promoted constitutional amendments that have taken Turkey in a more democratic direction. Furthermore, the Turkish public has proved itself to be highly committed to the EU goal, expressing a desire for the military to stay on the sidelines of politics.

Over the last three years Turkey has enacted laws designed to civilianize and democratize its polity. These measures have helped Turkey qualify for starting accession negotiations with the EU. Some daring steps -- such as permitting the use of Kurdish in broadcasting, and the founding of language schools in Kurdish or other ethnic-minority languages – were taken by the ruling Justice and Development Party (JDP), which has an Islamist pedigree. The JDP had a vested interest in liberalizing the polity and furthering the democratization of Turkey. That was the only way for it to legitimize itself and be accepted by the secular public. The government enjoyed unprecedented support and very vocal encouragement from the public in its pursuit of the reform process.

Until very recently, the military dominated the National Security Council, which acted as a board of directors to set the parameters of policy making, particularly in security matters, for elected governments. The recent reforms have changed the character of the NSC: The body now has a civilian secretary-general, and military members are in the minority.

Özkök has handled the transition with skill. The presence of the pro-EU Özkök in the top military post helped the cause of reform substantially. Özkök appears to understand the public’s sentiments well. He also seems to recognize the need to change the military’s posture so that EU membership -- which his hard-line predecessor, Hüseyin Kivrikoglu, called a geo-strategic necessity -- can be attained.

Özkök’s relatively more liberal approach is not widely shared, though, by some of his colleagues, and perhaps by some of his younger subordinates. In fact, in 2002, Kivrikoglu, the outgoing chief of staff, tried to extend his own term in an attempt to block Özkök’s ascent to the helm. Having failed in that, Kivrikoglu nonetheless used his discretionary power to name a hard-line colleague to the post of the ground forces commander instead of an Özkök ally. Another hardliner served as commander of the gendarmes. Together, those two officers reportedly mounted stiff opposition to the EU reform process and to Cyprus initiatives. According to the intimations of two senior columnists for the liberal daily Radikal, at least one of the hard-line generals may even have entertained the idea of a coup at some point.

With Özkök’s team in place, the Turkish military is likely to continue its own modernization program. It is also safe to assume that the military will be a politically less overbearing institution. As this year’s farewell and inaugural speeches on August 30 made clear, the armed forces are concerned with ethnic and micro nationalism, as well as the rise of anti-secular movements. Some commanders are unhappy with the pace as well as the content of reforms. Yet, Özkök appears committed to Turkey’s EU membership drive. At the same time, Özkök and other top military leaders continue to make it clear that any attempt to dilute the principle of secularism by this or any other government is likely to trigger a sharp rebuke from the military.

Given the military’s lingering suspicions about the JDP’s motives, along with the possible repercussions of recent reforms, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s government must continue to tread lightly to ensure that Turkey stays on the present political course. A gradual reform pace is needed to reassure Turkey’s military leadership, and to encourage them not to meddle in politics. The EU will also exert considerable influence over Turkish developments in the near- and medium-term. Specifically, the EU’s decision whether or not to begin accession negotiations, due by the end of the year, will have a bearing on the future course of Turkish reform, and the military’s role in Turkish politics.

* Editor’s Note: Soli Ozel is a leading political commentator in Turkey.

5. - The Economist - "Why Europe became serious about Turkey":

30 September 2004

THE suspense is mounting. Next week the European Commission will issue its opinion on Turkey's fitness to join the European Union. That opinion will be debated at a European summit in December; the summit could, in turn, decide to open membership talks a few months later. If the negotiations go really well—why, it could take a mere decade before something actually happens in the real world, and Turkey joins the EU.

The EU is considering Turkey’s application to join. The country's Ministry of Foreign Affairs offers a Turkish perspective on the negotiations.

It is easy to mock. In fact, for all the painstaking nature of the process, the EU's decisions in the coming weeks about Turkey will alter the future of the continent. Partisans of Turkish membership believe passionately that saying yes to a large Muslim state that longs to join is critical to avoiding a “clash of civilisations” between Islam and the West. Opponents believe just as strongly that it would be a profound error, which could destroy the EU and even feed political extremism in western Europe.

The EU's tried and trusted method is to drain the drama from such decisions by proceeding through a series of small steps, making it almost impossible to know when the line has actually been crossed. Some argue that Turkey's ultimate membership was decided as long ago as 1963, when the prospect of joining was first dangled before the Turks. Others say the critical moment came in 1999, when an EU summit proclaimed that Turkey was “destined to join the Union”. Still others think that the line has not yet been crossed, but that it will be once the commission recommends that membership talks should begin. No country that has begun negotiations has ever failed to complete them (though Norway's voters later rejected entry). But those seeking to calm anxieties about such a large, poor and Muslim country joining the EU assert that no final decisions are being taken this year. And some—including two senior French ministers only this week—are suggesting that France, and perhaps others, may hold referendums on whether to admit Turkey.

This step-by-step approach to dealing with such a sensitive matter as Turkish membership can make it seem as though Europe's leaders are avoiding considering the big issues by hiding behind a bureaucratic process. But that would be unfair. If, as expected, European leaders do press ahead with Turkey's application, their decision will reflect a profound reappraisal by leading politicians of the very purpose of their Union. That reappraisal is above all a reaction to September 11th.

The change in thinking of Joschka Fischer, the German foreign minister, is particularly significant. Until recently Mr Fischer was the hero of European federalists. In a speech in Berlin in 2000, he laid out a vision of political union for Europe, led by an “avant-garde” of countries committed to federalism. But earlier this year, Mr Fischer signalled that he had rethought, and now felt that enlarging the EU to include Turkey was a higher priority than building a highly integrated “core Europe”. As he told the Berliner Zeitung, “I was previously one of those people who were 51% in favour of Turkey's accession and 49% beset by doubts. I have fundamentally changed my position following the attacks of September 11th. Since then it has become ever clearer that European integration also has a strategic dimension.”

Speaking to journalists in Berlin recently, Otto Schily, Germany's interior minister, spelled out this argument, saying that admitting Turkey to the European Union would “show the world that it is possible for Muslims and the West to live together on the basis of the values of the enlightenment and the UN charter of human rights.” On the other hand, rebuffing Turkey could destabilise the country, with potentially dire consequences: “maybe Turkey would become an Islamist state, like Iran.”

Many traditional federalists are horrified by this shift in thinking in Germany. They fear that, as Sylvie Goulard, a professor at Sciences-Po in Paris puts it, admitting Turkey into the EU will mean abandoning the dream of political union and turning the EU into a “kind of regional UN”. Some suspect that Tony Blair or, worse still, George Bush are pushing Turkish membership precisely because they want the EU to revert to being little more than a glorified free-trade area.

The immigration card

For many Europeans the debate about Turkey does not ultimately revolve around federalism, but rather around the even trickier subject of immigration. Citizens of the EU enjoy freedom to move from one country to another. In Turkey's case that freedom would be delayed through the imposition of a transition period, but it could not be denied forever. The most heated opposition to Turkish membership is coming from countries like Austria, France and the Netherlands, which already have substantial Muslim populations and also far-right and populist parties that have surged on the back of opposition to immigration. The two European commissioners leading the fight against a positive opinion on Turkey are Dutch and Austrian. Frits Bolkestein, the Dutch commissioner, has argued that uncontrolled Muslim immigration into Europe could mean that the defeat of the Turks at the gates of Vienna in 1683 was in vain. In France, the ruling UMP party has come out against Turkish membership, putting itself at odds with President Jacques Chirac himself.

Might all this be enough to stop Turkey's membership talks? Probably not. The combination of a positive opinion from the commission, plus support from the leaders of Britain, France, Germany and Italy, is a powerful one. But the assumption that a decision to open negotiations makes the eventual admission of Turkey inevitable may be wrong. That was how things worked in the past. But a new and unpredictable element has entered the politics of Europe: a growing tendency to submit fundamental decisions to referendums. The Turkish accession train will roll forward next week, and probably next year too. But the chances of voters somewhere eventually pulling the emergency brake are increasing.

6. - Reuters - "EU study backs Turkey membership":

BRUSSELS / 30 September 2004 / by Yves Clarisse

The EU executive Commission says in a study that Turkey's membership of the European Union could offer economic and political benefits to both sides.

The study, obtained by Reuters on Thursday, gives a clear indication of commission thinking a week before the executive is due to issue a report on whether the EU should open entry talks with Ankara.

"Overall, EU Member States' economies would benefit from the accession of Turkey, albeit only slightly," the 'impact assessment', an estimate of the possible impacts of Turkish membership, said. "Turkey would benefit substantially from its accession to the EU."

"Accession of Turkey to the Union would be challenging for both the EU and Turkey," it said. "If well managed, it would offer important opportunities for both."

Turkey, with a population of 70 million, has been seeking EU membership since 1963 and has introduced a swathe of economic and political reforms, including changes to reduce the influence of the military and crack down on use of torture, to meet standards demanded by Brussels.

Its bid hit difficulties last week when the Turkish parliament delayed approval of a new penal code, seen as vital by the EU, because of controversial plans to make adultery a crime.

But parliament backtracked and adopted the penal code on Sunday. EU Enlargement Commissioner Guenter Verheugen has told Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan there were no further obstacles to the Commission giving a positive recommendation.

If next week's recommendation is indeed positive, as expected, EU leaders will decide in December whether to accept the advice and set a date when entry talks would start.

The study highlighted benefits membership would bring to many areas, including the Union's foreign policy.

"Turkey is a strategically important country whose EU membership would have implications for foreign policy in a number of potentially unstable neighbouring regions such as the Mediterranean, Middle East, Caucasus and Central Asia," it said.

The impact assessment put the total cost of Turkish membership from 2025 in the range of 16 to 28 billion euros (11 to 19 billion pounds) net per year, corresponding to between 0.1 and 0.17 percent of the bloc's Gross Domestic Product.

But the study said the figures were purely hypothetical as both EU policies and the development of Turkey's economy were bound to change while Turkish accession was under negotiation.

LIBERTY, DEMOCRACY AND HUMAN RIGHTS

It said there was already so much economic integration between Ankara and Brussels that the economic impact of accession on the EU would be positive but relatively small.

The study noted Turkey was reforming rapidly, and it was in the interest of all that the current transformation continued.

"Turkey would be an important model of a country with a majority Muslim population adhering to such fundamental principles as liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law," it said.

The possibility of Turkish membership has been controversial in many EU member states, raising questions over whether the poor, largely Muslim nation could fit easily into a bloc seen by some as a "Christian Club".

The study noted that agriculture was of key importance in Turkey, but did not offer an assessment of the possible consequences of accession in this field. The effects would be determined by developments in farm policy in both Turkey and the EU during long accession negotiations.

The study assumes the accession talks would continue beyond 2013, when the bloc's next financial cycle ends and a new budgetary programme comes into effect.

Turkish accession would add 39 million hectares to the EU's agricultural area, representing 23 percent of the agricultural area of the current 25 EU members.

Romania and Bulgaria are due to join the EU in 2007, taking the bloc's membership to 27.

The study noted that three million Turks already live in the EU, and said safeguard clauses could be considered to avoid serious disturbances on the EU labour market if there was significant additional migration after Turkey joined.

Turkey stretches from Europe to the Middle East, bordering energy giants Iraq and Iran, and the Commission said this would bring another important benefit to the bloc:

"Turkey's accession would help to secure better energy supply routes for the EU."

7. - Gulf News - "Kurds quietly build strength":

1 October 2004

Iraq's Kurds are working quietly to consolidate their position and be ready for trouble when it comes their way. The present savage fighting and political turmoil is all from the central and southern areas of the country, not the Kurdish controlled north.

The lack of any substantial political advance to a proper independent government has created a vacuum of which the two Kurdish leaders, Massoud Barzani and Jalal Talabani, are taking full advantage.

They managed to win effective independence for the Kurds in 1991, and they are still in charge of their territories. Both are working to expand their area of control and make Kirkuk a majority Kurdish city, giving them some control over the oil fields of north Iraq.

More significantly, they also control the peshmerga, the most effective Iraqi armed force today of around 100,000 men which has not disarmed. The coalition has treated the Kurds as allies, given their many years of anti-Saddam activity, but the rest of Iraq is not likely to accept their independent autonomy so easily.

While Iraq's present problems seem to revolve around Shiite hopes and ambitions, the Kurds could be a for more serious challenge to a unified Iraq. They will not accept a diminution of their present freedoms and prosperity.

8. - Businnes Week Online - "Making a United Cyprus 'Workable'":

29 September 2004

Cyprus has had a big year. In May, the tiny country achieved a long-cherished goal: entry into the European Union (news - web sites). But just a week before that momentous event, citizens on both sides of the island -- which has been divided into two parts since Turkish troops invaded in 1974 -- voted on a plan presented by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan (news - web sites) to create a united, federal state. The Turkish Cypriots approved the plan. But 76% of the Greek Cypriots, led by President Tassos Papadopoulos, voted no. On Sept. 24, President Papadopoulos sat down with BusinessWeek editors in New York to explain why he opposed a deal that might have been the island's last chance in years for a negotiated settlement. Edited excerpts of his conversation with them follow:

Q: Why did you recommend that Greek Cypriots reject the U.N. plan for reunification?

A: The question is, did this plan really provide for real reunification? No. It did more to cement the divisions than to promote unification. Where you would expect to find the center of power is a vacuum. It contains no effective methods for preventing policy deadlocks.

Most of the provisions of the plan provided for separate institutions (on the Greek side and on the Turkish side of Cyprus). For example, take monetary policy. There is no country in the world that has more than one monetary policy. But the Annan plan said that there should be a central bank branch on the Turkish side of the island with the power to supervise banks on that side.

Let's say on our side, we would want to have a policy of austerity, to cut the budget deficit to comply with the EU provisions. The Turkish side would want to have lots of investments so they could raise their standard of living. That requires government borrowing. But 90% of the guarantees for these loans would have to come from the Greek Cypriots.

As for decision-making, we agreed to a central bank board that would include two Greek Cypriots, two Turkish Cypriots, and one foreigner approved by both sides. Decisions would be taken by majority approval. But in the Annan plan, it required that each decision be approved by one Greek Cypriot and one Turkish Cypriot.

Q: Are there other reasons?

A: The negotiations that took place weren't real. The Turkish Cypriots got everything they wanted. We got next to nothing. Many provisions are a recipe for continuous deadlock. Everything is decided on a 50-50 basis, although the population is 82% Greek and 18% Turkish.

In the provisional U.N. plan, the Turkish troops would leave in 15 years, or when Turkey enters the European Union, whichever happens first. In the last version given to us on the last day, this provision was changed. The number of Turkish troops would decrease, but a number of them would remain forever, whether Turkey joins the EU or not.

Q: Is security your main objection?

A: Not for me, but it is for many. Lots of people are concerned about security. That's natural when your country has been invaded and occupied for 30 years by a very strong nation that is very important to the West, particularly Americans.

Q: The conventional wisdom has been that the status quo is not acceptable in the long term. But perhaps it is acceptable? A: No. Before 1974, the Turkish Cypriots owned 12.9% of privately owned lots in Cyprus. Now they occupy 37% of the land. Cyprus is a small island. People on islands are attached to the land.

The dream of every Cypriot is first to have a house. Second to send your children to the U.S. for education. Third, to have a car. But one-third of the Greek Cypriot population was pushed out of their homes in 1974. Cyprus is not big, like Texas or California. Before I became President, from my office window, I could see the house I was born in, on the other side, occupied by Turks. People are attached to their land, so how can we say, "O.K., forget it"?

Q: What do you do now?

A: Now, we identify some of the points and try to convince people that some of the provisions aren't workable. It's not a question of fair or unfair. We must make it more workable.

Q: Turkey now wants to join the EU. Does that play to your advantage?

A: You cannot be in the EU and not recognize another member state. The whole idea of the EU is to coordinate member states. Turkey can't be there and say, "I don't recognize Cyprus." Now, Turkey doesn't allow Cypriot ships to enter Turkish ports. That's a violation of international law and freedom of shipping. So they will have to do these things.

But I don't want you to read my words and (think) ah, unless Turkey satisfies our demands, we will veto their membership. I don't know what we will do by that time, but the veto is for the big guys.

Q: If relations between Greece and Turkey warm up, does that help Cyprus?

A: Good relations help us. If there is conflict, that hatred overflows to Cyprus.

Q: What's next?

A: Soon enough, Turkey will find out these issues aren't important points for Turkey within the EU. We want unification negotiations to remain in the U.N. We voted against this particular plan -- we did not vote against a solution. We're still committed to a federal solution.