MILLIYET- Columnist Sami Kohen comments on the differences of opinion between the Nationalist Action Party and the Motherland Party in terms of Turkey’s European Union membership. A summary of his column is as follows:
When Nationalist Action Party (MHP) leader Devlet Bahceli presented his party’s 124-page election manifesto, he reiterated his standard line on the European Union: ‘The issue of Turkey’s EU membership has been presented as a matter of life or death. No effort was spared to seduce Turkish citizens into EU membership, and so Turkey submitted her fate. Only the MHP has stood firm against the EU’s capricious and insistent demands.’ So goes the MHP’s stance on the EU issue, as spelled out in the foreign policy section of its ‘Turkey’s Honorable Future’ manifesto.
Bahceli’s latest pronouncements show that even in the closing days of the coalition, the MHP will not be swayed from its course. Its manifesto clearly indicates that its foreign policy won’t prioritize the EU, and will focus instead on becoming a ‘leader country’ through a ‘multilateral strategy.’ Thus the foreign policy section carries on about the Turkish world, Turkey’s Islamic neighbors, rapprochement with the Central Asian countries vis-a-vis language and culture, and the establishment of a ‘Turkish World Ministry’ should the MHP come to power. The manifesto also speaks about a partnership on Cyprus between two sovereign states, and declares that Turkey won’t just stand idly by if Greek Cyprus gets into the EU.
The Motherland Party’s (ANAP) manifesto stance on the EU and the latest statements by its leader Mesut Yilmaz are just the opposite of the MHP’s. The first lines of ANAP’s manifesto emphasize Turkey’s EU membership, stating, ‘Turkey is now at a crossroads. One of these roads leads to a rich, free, peaceful and strong Turkey, one integrated with the EU. The other leads to a poor country, one undeveloped in terms of democracy. When we set our priorities, we considered this truth. This is one of the reasons why we insist on Turkey’s EU membership.’ ANAP’s declaration explains the political, economic and social benefits that Turkey will gain thanks to its EU membership, stating, ‘Our having a political staff with a claim on the future government, so as not to again miss this opportunity, to push open fully the cracked EU door, this is indispensable.’ This implies that only ANAP can accomplish such a feat. Concerning the Cyprus issue, the manifesto says that ANAP ‘has the obligation to pursue a policy which protects the existence and rights of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus [TRNC].’ It adds that the Aegean problems will be solved through dialogue with Athens. On the Iraq issue, the manifesto makes the case for a non-military solution, adding that Turkey must prevent the formation of a Kurdish state in northern Iraq while also protecting the Turkmens there.
So we can see that excepting certain issues, most notably the EU, there isn’t much difference in the foreign policy stances of the MHP and ANAP, among other parties. Or, at least, judging by their election manifestoes. When the candidates hit the campaign trail and open up on the issues, we’ll have a better idea.
SOURCE: OFFICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER, DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF PRESS AND INFORMATION