By Gunduz Aktan
TDN- I am writing this article not knowing how different the Dec. 17 European Union summit decision will be from the fourth version, but we can say the likely changes will be more in wording than in content as the EU’s attitude towards our membership appears inflexible.
It seems likely we will get a date to start negotiations at the summit in 2005 with the objective being full membership.
However, the start of the process doesn’t necessarily mean it will progress smoothly. Cyprus, the Aegean, minorities (Kurds and Alawis), the supposed Armenian “genocide” and restricted membership that doesn’t correspond with full membership puts the whole process in doubt.
Some may think all these obstacles will be overcome one by one, but all of them preventing progress at the same time should be seen as a possibility.
It is being said we cannot refuse Greek Cypriot demands to recognize them because “they will be a party as a EU member in the negotiations.” However, how can we refuse to withdraw our military forces from the island, and refrain from interfering in the domestic political structure and its constitutional order when we become the occupiers of the north of an EU member country?
Greece failed to apply to the court to resolve the Aegean matter. Consequently, we won’t be able to declare a EU member that we will face at the negotiation table deciding to extend its continental shelf would be considered a casus belli. We will have to accept their demands and if the matter goes to court in The Hague, we will lose the Aegean entirely. It seems like the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK/Kongra-Gel) will continue to conduct terrorist acts perpetrated by Kurdish students at universities, rallies and through civil disobedience in order to establish an autonomous region in the Southeast. If the concept of minority, as defined in the progress report of Oct. 6, becomes a political condition we need to fulfill in the new Accession Partnership Document to be prepared in April 2005, it can be used to further autonomy demands.
French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier says he would present the recognition of the “Armenian tragedy” as a condition at the negotiation table. This means we will need to recognize the genocide allegations by the end of the negotiations.
The suspension of negotiations or issues that are backed with a veto threat and the sacrifices we need to make in order to appease will eventually result in chaotic public relations.
If Angela Merkel and Edmund Stoiber in Germany in 2006 and Nicholas Sarkozy in France in 2007 come to power and suspend the membership negotiations like they say they will, the process that will start after Dec. 17 will become meaningless.
Moreover, if the summit decision includes certain “derogations” in the freedom of movement, the agricultural sector and structural policies -- in other words the treatment accorded to Turkey differs from the fundamental values of the EU -- we will actually devolve into a privileged partnership. We will miss out on the main financial assistance accorded to member countries such as farming subsidies and structural funds. The people will naturally question the benefits of making so many sacrifices and what we are negotiating for.
The government did more than its share in satisfying the EU’s conditions and it issued the necessary warnings, but if the decision comes out as it is, it will become obvious the EU does not want us as members, or is not ready to accept us.
Under such conditions, the government may announce issues it cannot accept and reject the EU summit decision. This way, the EU may be forced to rethink its attitude that is limited, segregationist and prejudicial. Let’s not forget the fact that prejudicial actions are always followed by a deep regret. On the other hand, if we don’t become EU members, Greek Cypriots and Greeks will realize how much their excessive demands cost them.
Turkey can then prove that its democratic regime is strong enough to weather anything until the negotiations are restarted with a new set of rules.