By Yusuf Kanli
There is a deep mistrust in this country of any idea that comes from Europe, even though we have been aspiring for well over 200 years to integrate with the Europeans.
We often describe this “anomaly” as the “Sevres Syndrome” -- since some people have become "obsessed" with the idea that the eventual aim of the West in its dealings with Turkey is to carve out mini states for the Kurds, the Armenians and others and confine the Turks to the Ankara plateau.
The Sevres “Treaty” -- a document dividing the Ottoman Empire into many states and leaving only Ankara and environs to the Turks -- was never ratified and has become one of the many stillborn documents in the dustbin of the archives of history. That’s at least what we believe and how we confront the “Sevres-obsessed” people in our society.
Strong suspicions in Turkey concerning the “true intentions” of Europe, however, still prevail despite every domestic effort to dispel them, thanks to some foolish obsessions in Europe.
As we have said repeatedly in the past, Turkey's religion, the size of its population and territory as well as its neighborhood are factors that have remained almost intact since the 1963 September Ankara Accord with Europe, which stressed Turkey’s eligibility for accession provided specific conditions were met and set Turkey’s eventual full accession as a goal. The same factors were there when Turkey submitted its full membership application in 1987. They were there when Turkey was declared a candidate in 1999, and they were there when Turkey in 2002 was declared eligible to start accession talks immediately after the Dec. 17, 2004 summit provided the EU Commission reported Turkey's sufficient compliance with the EU’s so-called Copenhagen political criteria.
What has changed that has transformed Turkey's religion, the size of its population and territory and the neighborhood in which it is situated into handicaps for the start of accession talks or for Turkey’s eventual accession?
Were anti-EU nationalists in this country correct in their claims that Europe was just flirting with Turkey but that it would never marry her?
No one in Europe, frightened of the possibility of being labeled neo-racist, would publicly say, “The Turks are Muslim, they have no place in Europe,” but that appears to be one of the fundamental European hesitations in letting Turks in the EU.
This country received many pledges in the past that it would be treated on equal terms with all other candidate countries. Now the EU is telling Ankara that they have decided to change the rules of the game and that from now on all candidates will be subject to the conditions that will initially be applied to Turkey.
Is this honesty? Where is the fair play?
When you are dealing with a tiny statelet the government of which has no legal or moral right to represent the entire population, you say: “The Greek Cypriots cannot be held hostage by the Turks. They have been trying to solve the Cyprus problem, but the problem has become intractable because of that intransigent Rauf Denktas. Therefore, the Greek Cypriots will be allowed to join,” but when it comes to Turkey, although it is clear even to the deaf and blind in any European capital that the Cyprus problem was unable to be resolved because of the Greek Cypriot “no” vote on a U.N. plan last April, you say, “You have to recognize Cyprus before we can give you a date to start accession talks.”
Since Turkish recognition of the Greek Cypriot state will soon become inevitable -- as it would be odd to be in the same club but not recognize each other -- why are you making such a pre-condition? Is there any logic or sincerity in this?
With such artificial and unrealistic impositions, isn't Europe aware that it is making questionable some of its legitimate demands as well?
Unlike many in Turkey, I do believe that the clause giving the EU executive or a certain majority of EU members the right to seek a suspension of talks if Ankara goes back on reforms is indeed a guarantee that the talks process will continue without major problems and that the eventual target, accession, will be achieved.
Don’t I trust the government here?
Sure, I trust the capabilities of the Turkish government. We may scrap the State Security Courts, but we can reintroduce them under a different name disguised in another law. That’s what the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) government inserted into the law on trial procedures during the commission debates.