Category: EU Members

European Council decided to open accession negotiations with Turkey on 17 Dec. 2004

  • An expanded Europe will benefit Britain

    An expanded Europe will benefit Britain

    Maintaining the momentum of EU accession, particularly in the western Balkans and Turkey, will strengthen the UK economycaroline flint LABOUR PARTY CONFERENCE 2008

    Five years ago the European Union expanded overnight, extending its boundaries to include 12 new members and 104 million more citizens. But not everyone was rejoicing. Euro-sceptics claimed that the EU’s influence would be too great – or maybe too small. Some panicked that millions of new EU citizens would swamp our labour market. Others feared that weaker economies would suck the funding away from the richer EU members. Many doubted that with so many voices around the table, anything would ever get done.

    Five years on, it’s clear that those sceptics were wrong. The EU is stronger for being broader: an expanded EU has vastly increased trading opportunities for British business, has increased security at home and in our neighbourhood and has weakened the case for creating a European super state.

    But making the case for further enlargement and more free movement is undoubtedly more difficult in a recession, when unemployment is rising and pressure on public services intense.

    We need to recognise that people’s perceptions of enlargement are not clear-cut. People have genuine fears over crime, job losses and over-crowded communities. But it’s important to separate myth from fact, to recognise what has gone right and to put forward the case for maintaining the momentum of EU accession, particularly in the western Balkans, but also in Turkey – a view echoed by the US president Barack Obama during his recent visit there.

    The case for further enlargement rests on more than the figures charting increased growth and trade flows, important though these are to the British economy. We need to be clear too about the benefits to regional stability and security, particularly at a time when crime increasingly knows no borders.

    Enlargement has transformed the countries of eastern Europe after decades of communism: anchoring democracy and market based economic systems; and promoting social progress and human rights.

    We should continue to take forward Turkey’s accession negotiations, too. Turkey is a country of huge economic potential and its position at the crossroads of Europe makes it a logical transit route for energy from both the Middle East and Central Asia, and a key force for stability and prosperity in the region. It’s in our interests to see the EU’s shared values and common standards grow beyond our current boundaries and extend, for the first time, to a majority Muslim country.

    Enlargement brings risks and it hasn’t always been easy. Joining the EU is not, nor should it be, a walk in the park. Back in the 1970s, the UK’s application for membership was rejected twice. Not so long ago, people railed when Spain and Greece applied to join.

    But we have shown in the past and we’ll show again in the future that we can manage the risks by setting rigorous standards: on fighting crime and corruption; on respect for human rights; by ensuring that countries that join the EU have the political and economic structures to cope and are in a position to contribute to the strength of the union.

    The future of Europe is yet to be written but it’s clear to me that the UK’s interests lie in seeing a union that moves forwards and outwards: one that delivers growth in the UK and a powerful platform for negotiating with other countries on issues that matter to British people. An expanded Europe will help deliver both these aims.

    guardian.co.uk, Friday 1 May 2009

  • Heavy Traffic at Bulgaria Border Crossing Points with Greece, Turkey

    Heavy Traffic at Bulgaria Border Crossing Points with Greece, Turkey

    bCar traffic has formed at Bulgaria’s border crossing point with Greece and Turkey over tourist interest towards those destinations for the 6 day holiday in Bulgaria.

    The situation, though, has not led to significant standstills, director of Regional Border Police Directorate – Smolyan,Totor Georgiev, said, as cited by Focus News. In his words, for a short period of time lines of cars had formed at about 8:00 am at Kulata border checkpoint.

    Currently, all five customs offices are working. Officials advice Bulgarians who travel to Turkey to use the border crossing points at Lesovo and Malko Tarnovo, as well.

     Novinite

  • Greek Cypriots can claim back land, EU court says

    Greek Cypriots can claim back land, EU court says

     

    Cyprus joined the EU in 2004, but negotiations on its re-unification are still ongoing (Photo: European Commission)

    ELITSA VUCHEVA

    Today @ 09:16 CET

    The EU’s top court on Tuesday (28 April) ruled in favour of a Greek Cypriot reclaiming his land in the Turkish-controlled northern part of Cyprus – a move that could open the way for more Greek Cypriots to follow the example – and potentially harden divisions on the island.

    Meletis Apostolides, who fled his land when Turkish troops invaded the northern part of Cyprus in 1974 following a Greek-inspired coup, is entitled to reclaim it back, the European Court of Justice ruled.

    Linda and David Orams, a British couple who had meanwhile purchased the land and built a villa there, should demolish it and leave, the ECJ said, backing the verdict of a Cypriot court from 2004.

    The ECJ also stressed that the UK had to accept the judgments of the Cypriot court, although application of EU law in Northern Cyprus was suspended for the purposes of Cyprus’ EU accession.

    “The recognition and enforcement of the judgements of the Cypriot court cannot be refused in the United Kingdom,” it stressed.

    “The fact that the land concerned is situated in an area over which the government does not exercise effective control … does not preclude the recognition and enforcement of those judgements in another member state,” it added.

    Mr Apostolides said he was very pleased with the ruling and that it was “what we expected.”

    “This is a difficult issue that has to be decided by the courts,” he was quoted by the BBC as saying.

    ‘A negative impact’

    Cyprus – an EU member state that joined the bloc in 2004 – has been independent since 1960 and divided since 1974. Currently Northern Cyprus is only recognised by Turkey.

    After the Turkish invasion in 1974, some 170,000 Greek Cypriots fled to the south of the island, abandoning their properties, which were then distributed among Turkish Cypriots.

    Many properties were subsequently sold on to foreigners, mainly from the UK, with the island becoming an increasingly attractive destination in recent years.

    The ECJ’s judgment is likely to incite more Greek Cypriot to claim back their land, which is in turn likely to trigger strong opposition among Turkish Cypriots.

    Disputes related to Greek and Turkish Cypriots forced to leave their properties as a result of the partition have been among the main obstacles to the reunification of the divided island.

    A spokesman for Turkish Cypriot leader Mehmet Ali Talat said the ruling would “negatively impact” talks between Mr Talat and the island’s Greek Cypriot president, Dimitris Christofias, when it comes to future property arrangements.

    The ECJ ruling “certainly does sour the atmosphere,” Emine Erk, a northern Cypriot lawyer who had been following the case closely, told the Financial Times.

    The verdict will be perceived by Turkish Cypriots as an offence, she added.

    Meanwhile, the Greek Cypriot-run government welcomed the judgement.

    The court “has defended the property right of the citizens of the Republic of Cyprus, as EU citizens, irrespective of whether the property is located in the free or in the occupied areas,” spokesman Stefanos Stefanou was quoted by AFP news agency as saying.

    https://euobserver.com/rule-of-law/28029

  • ‘Too late’ to contain swine flu

    ‘Too late’ to contain swine flu

    Infection control experts are scrambling to respond to outbreaks of swine flu in Mexico and the US, and suspected cases elsewhere.

    HOW SWINE FLU OUTBREAK EMERGED

    Flu viruses in different species
    Flu viruses mutate over time causing small changes to proteins on their surface called antigens. If the immune system has met particular strain of the virus before it is likely to have some immunity; but if the antigens are new to the immune system, it will be weakened. The flu currently making headlines is a strain of H1N1 influenza A virus, which affects birds, some mammals and humans.
    Flu virus mutation
    The influenza A virus can mutate in two different ways; antigenic drift, in which existing antigens are subtly altered, and antigenic shift, in which two or more strains combine. Antigenic drift causes the slight mutations year on year in the flu strains that normally affect humans. As a result humans have partial, but not complete, immunity. By contrast, the new strain of H1N1 appears to have originated via antigenic shift in Mexican pigs.
    Antigenic shift in pigs
    The name “swine flu” is a slight misnomer as it is believed pigs acted as a mixing pot for several flu strains, containing genetic material from pigs, birds and humans. Some of the antigens involved in the new strain have never been seen by the immune systems of almost all humans, so the new strain has the potential to cause a pandemic.
    Virus transmission to humans
    The new virus has made the jump from pigs to humans and has demonstrated it can pass quite easily from human to human. This is why it is demanding so much attention from worldwide health authorities. The virus passes from human to human like other types of flu, either through coughing, sneezing, or by touching infected surfaces. However, not much else is yet known about how the virus acts on humans.

    BACK 1 of 4 NEXT  
    What is swine flu?

    Swine flu is a respiratory disease, caused by influenza type A which infects pigs.

    There are many types, and the infection is constantly changing.

    Until now it has not normally infected humans, but the latest form clearly does, and can be spread from person to person – probably through coughing and sneezing.

    What is new about this type of swine flu?

    The World Health Organization has confirmed that at least some of the human cases are a never-before-seen version of the H1N1 strain of influenza type A.

    SWINE FLU Symptoms usually similar to seasonal flu – but deaths recorded in Mexico It is a new version of the H1N1 strain which caused the 1918 flu pandemic Too early to say whether it will lead to a pandemic Current treatments do work, but there is no vaccine Good personal hygiene, such as washing hands, covering nose when sneezing advised

    H1N1 is the same strain which causes seasonal outbreaks of flu in humans on a regular basis.

    But this latest version of H1N1 is different: it contains genetic material that is typically found in strains of the virus that affect humans, birds and swine.

    Flu viruses have the ability to swap genetic components with each other, and it seems likely that the new version of H1N1 resulted from a mixing of different versions of the virus, which may usually affect different species, in the same animal host.

    Pigs provide an excellent ‘melting pot’ for these viruses to mix and match with each other.

    How dangerous is it?

    Symptoms of swine flu in humans appear to be similar to those produced by standard, seasonal flu.

    These include fever, cough, sore throat, body aches, chills and fatigue.

    Most cases so far reported around the world appear to be mild, but in Mexico lives have been lost.

    How worried should people be?

    When any new strain of flu emerges that acquires the ability to pass from person to person, it is monitored very closely in case it has the potential to spark a global epidemic, or pandemic.

    FLU PANDEMICS 1918: The Spanish flu pandemic remains the most devastating outbreak of modern times. Caused by a form of the H1N1 strain of flu, it is estimated that up to 40% of the world’s population were infected, and more than 50 million people died, with young adults particularly badly affected
    1957: Asian flu killed two million people. Caused by a human form of the virus, H2N2, combining with a mutated strain found in wild ducks. The impact of the pandemic was minimised by rapid action by health authorities, who identified the virus, and made vaccine available speedily. The elderly were particularly vulnerable
    1968: An outbreak first detected in Hong Kong, and caused by a strain known as H3N2, killed up to one million people globally, with those over 65 most likely to die

    The World Health Organization has warned that taken together the Mexican and US cases could potentially trigger a global pandemic, and stress that the situation is serious.

    However, experts say it is still too early to accurately assess the situation fully.

    Currently, they say the world is closer to a flu pandemic than at any point since 1968 – rating the threat at three on a six-point scale.

    Nobody knows the full potential impact of a pandemic, but experts have warned that it could cost millions of lives worldwide. The Spanish flu pandemic, which began in 1918, and was also caused by an H1N1 strain, killed millions of people.

    The fact that all the cases in the US and elsewhere have so far produced mild symptoms is encouraging. It suggests that the severity of the Mexican outbreak may be due to an unusual geographically-specific factor – possibly a second unrelated virus circulating in the community – which would be unlikely to come into play in the rest of the world.

    Alternatively, people infected in Mexico may have sought treatment at a much later stage than those in other countries.

    It may also be the case that the form of the virus circulating in Mexico is subtly different to that elsewhere – although that will only be confirmed by laboratory analysis.

    There is also hope that, as humans are often exposed to forms of H1N1 through seasonal flu, our immune systems may have something of a head start in fighting infection.

    However, the fact that many of the victims are young does point to something unusual. Normal, seasonal flu tends to affect the elderly disproportionately.

    Can the virus be contained?

    The virus appears already to have started to spread around the world, and most experts believe that containment of the virus in the era of readily available air travel will be extremely difficult.

    Can it be treated?

    The US authorities say that two drugs commonly used to treat flu, Tamiflu and Relenza, seem to be effective at treating cases that have occurred there so far. However, the drugs must be administered at an early stage to be effective.

    Use of these drugs may also make it less likely that infected people will pass the virus on to others.

    The UK Government already has a stockpile of Tamiflu, ordered as a precaution against a pandemic.

    It is unclear how effective currently available flu vaccines would be at offering protection against the new strain, as it is genetically distinct from other flu strains.

    US scientists are already developing a bespoke new vaccine, but it may take some time to perfect it, and manufacture enough supplies to meet what could be huge demand.

    A vaccine was used to protect humans from a version of swine flu in the US in 1976.

    However, it caused serious side effects, including an estimated 500 cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome. There were more deaths from the vaccine than the outbreak.

    What should I do to stay safe?

    Anyone with flu-like symptoms who might have been in contact with the swine virus – such as those living or travelling in the areas of Mexico that have been affected – should seek medical advice.

    But patients are being asked not to go into doctors surgeries in order to minimise the risk of spreading the disease to others. Instead, they should stay at home and call their healthcare provider for advice.

    Although the Foreign and Commonwealth Office says people “should be aware” of the outbreak, it is not currently advising people against travelling to affected areas of Mexico and the US.

    What measures can I take to prevent infection?

    Avoid close contact with people who appear unwell and who have fever and cough.

    General infection control practices and good hygiene can help to reduce transmission of all viruses, including the human swine influenza. This includes covering your nose and mouth when coughing or sneezing, using a tissue when possible and disposing of it promptly.

    It is also important to wash your hands frequently with soap and water to reduce the spread of the virus from your hands to face or to other people and cleaning hard surfaces like door handles frequently using a normal cleaning product.

    If caring for someone with a flu-like illness, a mask can be worn to cover the nose and mouth to reduce the risk of transmission. The UK is looking at increasing its stockpile of masks for healthcare workers for this reason.

    But experts say there is no scientific evidence to support more general wearing of masks to guard against infections.

    Is it safe to eat pig meat?

    Yes. There is no evidence that swine flu can be transmitted through eating meat from infected animals.

    However, it is essential to cook meat properly. A temperature of 70C (158F) would be sure to kill the virus.

    What about bird flu?

    The strain of bird flu which has caused scores of human deaths in South East Asia in recent years is a different strain to that responsible for the current outbreak of swine flu.

    The latest form of swine flu is a new type of the H1N1 strain, while bird, or avian flu, is H5N1.

    Experts fear H5N1 hold the potential to trigger a pandemic because of its ability to mutate rapidly.

    However, up until now it has remained very much a disease of birds.

    Those humans who have been infected have, without exception, worked closely with birds, and cases of human-to-human transmission are extremely rare – there is no suggestion that H5N1 has gained the ability to pass easily from person to person.

    Where can I get further advice?

    Further information and advice on swine flu can be found at websites of leading health and research organisations around the world. The World Health Organisation gives background information on the virus. The UK’s Health Protection Agency advises the public about what to do if returning from an affected area. NHS Choices outlines how swine flu is different from other flu. The US government’s Centre for Disease Control is counting the number of cases in the US.

    You can also track the spread of swine flu reports using unofficial sources. Healthmaps maps viruses using news reports. Social media guide Mashable lists some ways to track the virus . Links to useful websites are being shared on Twitter , the micro-blogging service.


    Read answers from an expert to some of your questions on swine flu

    Policemen on Reforma Avenue in Mexico City wearing surgical masks, 27 April 2009 ‘Too late’ to contain swine flu The deadly swine flu virus can no longer be contained, says a WHO official, as the health agency raises its alert level. Life at centre of outbreak Q&A: What is swine flu? How well prepared is the world? Mapping the outbreak Swine flu: Your experiences Economic im

    Print Sponsor

    Advertisement
    SWINE FLU OUTBREAK
    KEY STORIES ‘Too late’ to contain swine flu South Korea testing for swine flu Flu prompts UK travel warning Flu fears hit airline shares
    FEATURES AND ANALYSIS Patients at a hospital in Toluca, Mexico, 26/04 Q&A
    What swine flu is, and how its spread can be prevented
    Life at centre of the outbreak Map: How the flu has spread Is the world ready for a pandemic? Economy braced for impact UK lab ready to analyse swine flu Lessons from Asia ‘I couldn’t get out of bed’ In pictures
    VIDEO AND AUDIO Scottish Health Secretary Nicola Sturgeon Swine flu confirmed in Scotland

    Barack Obama Obama: Flu ‘no cause for alarm’

    Man wearing mask in Mexico WHO raises flu alert level

    lab scientist UK lab prepares for swine flu samples

    HAVE YOUR SAY Mexico interactive map Eyewitness map
    Reaction and reports in text, video and audio
    Are you worried about flu? Swine flu: Your experiences

    RELATED INTERNET LINKS Health Protection Agency World Health Organization The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites
    TOP HEALTH STORIES ‘Too late’ to contain swine flu
    Fatty foods ‘offer memory boost’
    Child behaviour ‘linked to sleep’
    News feeds| News feeds

  • OPINION: An alliance of equals

    OPINION: An alliance of equals

    OPINION: An alliance of equals —Michel Rocard

    michel-rocardNATO needs to shift its focus from organising and administering a unified military command to building real confidence that every member’s voice will be heard. To that end, all members must stand on an equal footing

    During NATO’s recent 60th anniversary ceremony in Strasbourg, the Alliance welcomed two new members, Albania and Croatia, bringing its total membership to 28. This expansion is a good thing, for history has tormented these two countries. Being welcomed within the great international family of the West will reassure them, stabilise them, and contribute to their political, cultural, and economic development.

    But the good news was limited, because NATO addressed only a routine agenda. No core problem was really tackled.

    The controversy that arose in France over the country’s return to NATO’s unified military command makes this abundantly clear. Was France losing its autonomy, perhaps even its sovereignty? Was it capitulating to American hegemony? These are real questions, yet at the NATO summit people spoke of them more in terms of symbols than as realities.

    But what is the reality here? NATO is a military alliance composed of 28 countries. One of them, the United States, has a military budget that is more than three times that of all the other members combined. Hence, the US runs most NATO civilian and military commands with the consent of the others. Of course, there is a collective consultation and deliberative process that enables any member to be heard. But in reality a member’s actual power is what affects common decisions.

    This structure harks back to the conditions of NATO’s birth, when it was forged to thwart the Soviet threat to Western civilisation. At the time, no one ever doubted that American power — already endowed with nuclear weapons — was the only counterpart. For this reason, the US came to preside over the alliance.

    During the 41 years of the Cold War, 14 of NATO’s 16 members strictly obeyed and complied with American decisions and policies. French President Charles de Gaulle was the only one to question whether an American president would actually ever be ready to launch a nuclear attack on the USSR in order to protect one or several Alliance members if vital US interests were not directly at stake.

    Based on that doubt, France — a nuclear power since 1960 — withdrew in 1966 from the Alliance’s permanent centralised military command in order to assert its own deterrent capability. This decision was mainly grounded on the American doctrine, adopted in 1962, of “flexible response”, which said to the Soviets: “As long as you do not use nuclear weapons, we will not use them, either.” This very doctrine left Europe exposed.

    Indeed, while it is a much disputed question, de Gaulle was probably right about America’s lack of commitment to the nuclear defence of Europe. Both Henry Kissinger and Robert McNamara left office admitting that de Gaulle had been correct. Nevertheless, de Gaulle’s insights left a legacy that still causes some mistrust and dissent within NATO. France was right on this key strategic point, but it was never able to explain its position to its allies.

    This inability to discuss, clearly and forthrightly, this strategic doctrine continues to hamper the Alliance. At the Strasbourg summit, confidence in the future could have been strengthened if a couple of troubling issues had been discussed. Instead, once again, there was an extended focus on the past.

    The key questions are whether NATO’s doctrine of common defence is currently directed at one country in particular, and whether nuclear force remains the Alliance’s major defensive tool.

    In the current global situation, no predictable conflict will require the use of a nuclear weapon. At the moment, there is no global threat and the Alliance only intervenes in regional conflicts, so why not have NATO admit this?

    But the most important matter that went unmentioned in Strasbourg is the relationship with Russia. NATO was founded to confront the threat that the USSR represented 60 years ago. But the Warsaw Pact, the Soviet Union’s “anti-NATO” alliance of socialist countries, was dissolved in 1991; communism imploded the same year, with Russia caught ever since in a struggle to build a market economy and define a new global position for itself.

    At a time when Russia was taking a more pacific course, NATO — unlike the Warsaw Pact — was not dismantled. On the contrary, the Allies chose to maintain the pact and to extend it to numerous Russian neighbours. NATO’s members essentially said: “We Western nations do not trust you. Even if you become a democracy, we will always be suspicious.”

    George Kennan, one of the greatest American diplomats of the post-war years, once wrote that the Western world was committing its biggest mistake in 50 years time by expanding NATO after Soviet communism collapsed. The resulting humiliation and blatant mistrust that Russia’s elite has felt ever since has led them to their current policy of rearmament. The only way to resolve this problem is for NATO to assert its pacific intentions before the world.

    The most convincing way to do that is to moderate America’s excessive taste for power, which it demonstrated in Iraq. NATO needs to shift its focus from organising and administering a unified military command to building real confidence that every member’s voice will be heard. To that end, all members must stand on an equal footing. France’s decision to return to full and equal Alliance membership was a good one, and France must now work from within to advance the principles in which it believes. —DT-PS

    Michel Rocard, former Prime Minister of France and leader of the Socialist Party, is a member of the European Parliament

    Source:  www.dailytimes.com.pk, April 25, 2009

  • Is Rasmussen the Right Man?

    Is Rasmussen the Right Man?

    Dennis Nottebaumwrongman

    President Obama’s European tour went remarkably smoothly. Many expected the G20 summit to end in fights over stronger regulations of the global financial system, but despite president Sarkozy’s hard-line position the outcome was surprisingly consensual. The US and most West European governments were even able to agree on a common candidate for NATO’s new Secretary General, an issue that has led to rather longer arguments in the past. Everyone seemed to be in high spirits until Turkish Prime Minister Erdoğan disturbed the party with his publicly declared opposition to the candidacy of Anders Fogh Rasmussen – a diplomatic clanger.

    An ultimate veto against the candidate could only be avoided by reportedly broad concessions to Turkey, chief among which was the appointment of a Turkish deputy to Rasmussen and the shut-down of the allegedly pro-PKK TV channel Roj TV, which operates from Denmark. Despite the seeming resolution of the situation, the implications of the choice of Rasmussen remain problematic. The quarrel indicates two developments that will pose great challenges to both NATO and the European Union. First, Erdoğan’s conduct demonstrates a new Turkish self-assurance in standing up to its Western partners, that can largely be traced back to a general strategic reorientation in Ankara. The case also highlights a serious lack of sensitivity towards the ‘Islamic world’ on the part of central NATO member states, calling into question NATO’s strategic reorientation.

    The causa Rasmussen

    Rasmussen has become a persona non grata in much of the ‘Islamic world’ due to his fervent support of the Iraq war and his mismanagement of the cartoon controversy in 2005. After the cartoons were published in Denmark several ambassadors from Muslim countries tried to enter into dialogue with Rasmussen on how to defuse the situation. The Danish Prime Minister arrogantly snubbed them. While insisting on free speech as a vital component of civil liberties in his country, he nevertheless failed to acknowledge the need to communicate this principle or to engage in dialogue over what had occurred. His behavior left the ambassadors startled and ruined his reputation in the ‘Islamic world’. Moreover, Rasmussen’s minority government has long relied on toleration of the right-wing Folkeparti, a group that has repeatedly used racist, anti-Muslim rhetoric.
    It is indeed surprising that it took an embarrassing public declaration by Erdoğan to point out the implications of the candidate. Still NATO chose to ignore Rasmussen’s bad standing in a key region of the globe and a primary area of operation for NATO. It is essential for a Secretary General of NATO to be able to get along well with the ‘Muslim world’. Rasmussen’s appointment comes as a welcome present for the propagandists of Al Qaeda and the Taliban, who have long declared NATO’s intervention in Afghanistan anti-Muslim. It also contradicts president Obama’s efforts to reorganize NATO and clearly shift its focus to AfPak.

    Turkey’s reorientation

    Turkey’s geographical proximity to the Balkans, the Middle East and the Caucasus locates it at an intersection of pivotal energy and transportation networks. Its political and economic ties to Syria, Iran and other Southern neighbours provide Ankara with unique access to and influence in one of the most troublesome areas of the globe. Turkey’s position benefits the increasingly outward-oriented EU and NATO when it comes to influence and credibility in this area; an asset that shouldn’t be trifled with.

    The country has always been torn between its ties to these neighbours and to the European Union. Atatürk’s secular model of the state launched Turkey on a westernising path, but this path is by no means uncontested. After having lost some eight percent of the popular vote in the recent parliamentary elections, Erdoğan has come under increased pressure from within his party. Conservative elements in the AKP have long demanded a more self-assured position for Turkey against its Western allies, particularly the European Union. The ‘special treatment’ that has characterized the long and troubled process of Turkey’s accession to the Union has alienated many Turks from the western orientation of Erdoğan’s early years. His and his party’s steadily decreasing popularity signify this, as does the subsequent cessation of Turkish reform efforts towards meeting the Copenhagen criteria since 2005. The political costs of the accession process are starting to outweigh the gains that Turkey aspired to. It gets harder and harder for the pro-EU parties to keep up their support for the accession process in the light of a rising popular reservation against further concessions without clear signals from the EU.
    Erdoğan’s refusal to support Rasmussen’s candidacy emphasizes the implications of Turkey’s strategic reorientation. Turkey will increasingly turn towards its Southern neighbours in order to assert its power in the region. The assurance of a distinctively pro-Muslim policy will highlight Turkey’s key role and further its position as a spokesman of the ‘Muslim world’. Erdoğan’s row with Shimon Peres in Davos hinted at such a strategy, underlined by Turkey’s successful conduct as a mediator between Syria and Israel.

    At the same time this emphasizes the strategic importance of the only Muslim NATO member as a key ally both for the Alliance and the EU. It is high time for the Union to acknowledge Turkey’s geopolitical potential and its uniqueness as a secular democracy with a predominantly Muslim population. Turkey as an EU member (provided it meets the Copenhagen criteria) will be an invaluable asset in the region because it can better than any other country play the role of the honest broker. Moreover, as the only NATO member keeping diplomatic contact with Tehran, Ankara is a prime channel for a rapprochement. If the EU continues to alienate Turkey and invent new strategies to protract the accession process it will lose the Turks. It becomes increasingly hard to explain to the Turkish people why they face harsh visa restrictions when traveling to the EU while most EU citizens can freely go to Turkey. And Ankara’s elites are hesitant to perform any further pro-European reforms as long as European governments – especially Germany and France – continue to undermine the perspective of full membership.
    The window of opportunity that the Erdoğan government has represented (at least in its earlier years) is closing. A future Turkish administration is much likely to be a lot less pro-Western.

    NATO’s strategic choice

    President Obama’s visit to Turkey and his call for the EU to fast-track the accession of Ankara are signs that the new American administration acknowledges the importance of NATO’s only predominantly Muslim member. It also came as a well-placed nod to moderate Islam. Turkey’s ties to Iran and Syria may be another reason here, as is the potential use of Turkish territory during the US pullout from Iraq. Many in Europe still believe that cooperation with Turkey is nothing more than a benevolent gift to an emerging country. It’s not. From a geopolitical perspective, and for economic reasons, strong ties are a win-win-situation. Obama’s visit has made this very clear: there is something to gain for America in Turkey. And despite strong anti-American sentiments, the Turks seem to respond positively to Obama’s open hand. Again the Europeans are losing ground.

    The whole controversy around the appointment of the new NATO secretary general emphasizes that a few calls between Washington, London and Berlin are no longer sufficient to govern a multipolar world. Other states need to be actively incorporated in order to achieve a broad consensus and thus a strong strategic position. Engaging Turkey is a first step – and a smart one given Ankara’s influence.

    Obama’s call for a large-scale reform of NATO towards a more flexible, globally operating security force is highly controversial within the Alliance, especially among its larger Western European members. However, NATO’s future mission will undoubtedly include a more active role in regional crisis areas, especially in the wider Middle East. The importance of its image in the region therefore must not be underestimated, which NATO still does given the symbolic meaning of a Secretary General Rasmussen. The issue comes as a huge ideological burden for NATO’s operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere; a needless mistake, that should have been avoided. And yet another reason to embrace Turkey.

    Source: www.morungexpress.com