Category: EU Members

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

Interview transcript: Abdullah Gul

Published: April 8 2009 15:24 | Last updated: April 8 2009 15:24

In an interview with Delphine Strauss in Ankara after Barack Obama’s visit, Abdullah Gul, Turkey’s president spoke of his reaction to the US president’s initiatives and warned that European criticisms could pose a threat to western security interests. The following is a transcript of the interview

What do you expect the impact of President Obama’s visit to be inside Turkey?

Gul: First of all we were very happy because this is the first overseas visit – the first bilateral visit of the new US president – to our country and the fact that he has chosen Turkey and has chosen to address the Islamic world from the Turkish parliament made us very happy.

We have seen that they realise the place of Turkey. I told him, take out a piece of paper and write down the priorities for US foreign policy. I’d also take a paper and write down the issues Turkey has been dealing with. You will not see such similarities with any other country in the issues they are dealing with.

Of course the US is a superpower, so they have duties, but in this region we are one of the important countries. In this region, from Afghanistan to the Balkans, from energy security to the Middle East, from terrorism to nuclear disarmament, these are issues not only of interest to Turkey but to all of the world.

Therefore the visit of the US president to Turkey was not only aiming at strengthening bilateral relations between the two countries but also of great relevance to regional and international issues.

One of the most important messages Obama gave yesterday was his support for the talks going on between Armenia and Turkey. He also met yesterday evening with both foreign ministers. What is left to resolve before we see public steps on this issue?

Gul: As I’m sure you know there have been efforts at normalisation from time to time between the two countries, but as you see these efforts accelerated after my visit to Armenia. This visit was a historical visit because this was the first time a Turkish president was in Yerevan and from that time on from telephone calls and other communications we have come to a certain mutual understanding on normalisation of relations. Through bilateral talks, I can say that we have reached a good understanding towards normalisation. In fact, after last summer there has been a new situation in the Caucasus. Everybody saw that these problems which we thought were frozen could immediately become big problems.

Therefore we have started an initiative named Stability and Cooperation in the Caucasus. From this perspective the major problem in the Caucasus is the Karabagh question between Armenia and Azerbaijan, We wish that this problem is resolved so that a new climate emerges in the Caucasus, because in fact although this is a relatively small area it can become a wall between East and West or it can become a gateway.

We are in a great effort to resolve these problems in the Caucasus and I believe that the year 2009 is a year of opportunity in that respect. And therefore I would like to invite everybody, beginning with the Minsk group, to multiply their efforts to come up with a solution.

We heard from president Obama that a breakthrough in these talks could be very close. Are you saying we should not expect a public step forward before there has been progress in the Minsk group?

Gul: I can say that there is a good level of understanding between the parties and goodwill on both sides

There is a clear statement that partnership with Turkey is crucial to US policies in the region. What role exactly does the US want Turkey to play, for example, in Afghanistan?

Gul: Frankly in this visit there was no concrete demand. Based on our understanding of our responsibility in that matter we have increased our efforts, our contributions, not only in terms of our military presence but also in our civilian activities.

As you know we had the command of ISAF twice before and we will now take over the command of the forces in Afghanistan. There are other sides of our military activities but what’s more important is the civilian activities that we’re undertaking and I’ve shared this extensively in our Nato meeting. I’ve visited Kabul. I stayed there two days, I visited everywhere in that city and I saw that we cannot win people’s hearts and minds no matter how much we spend on the military side. I said before that the streets of Kabul are flooded with mud. People are walking there as if they are just floating on mud. We’ve now allocated $100m for asphalting streets in Kabul. We’ve almost finished the tender process and started actually preparing the roads. In a country where the girls are not allowed to go out in the street, we’ve open tens of schools for girls. In total we’ve opened hundreds of schools.

You might have followed that five days ago we had the president of Afghanistan and Pakistan and also the general chiefs of joint staff [for meetings in Ankara]… This was very important… Our sole objective in this was to establish a working relationship between these institutions and it actually materialised.

I have obtained in full the opinion of both of these presidents so that I can convey these views to the Nato leaders and to president Obama. I was very happy that I shared our assessments and the realities and the facts in a very open manner and I think it was of great service.

Our foreign minister has visited all three regions in Afghanistan, many cities, with his wife. We are not leaders to go to Afghanistan and to visit our troops there in an isolated manner and come back. So the capacity of contribution in Turkey in those matters is very large. Why are we doing all of this? We are doing all of this for peace and stability and to expand our common values.

I understand that as Turkey takes over command in Afghanistan that will involve increasing the numbers of troops. Is that correct?

Gul: Yes, as I’ve said we’re increasing our military and civilian presence. The way in which we do these things, the military authorities are working on that.

Do you have a sense of the numbers involved?

Gul: This will certainly be an important contribution but there will not be any combat forces.

Turkey has been very assertive in its foreign policy recently, for example making its objections to the appointment of Mr Rasmussen very clear. Is there a risk of all this antagonising its European partners?

Gul: That shouldn’t be the case. Especially in a defence organisation like Nato, it is necessary that you discuss these matters in decision making mechanisms and come to a decision. Since 1952 Turkey has been the most active member of nato and a major contributor. During the cold war period Turkey spent its own resources for the defence of Europe. This should be appreciated.

We have discussed [Rasmussen’s candidacy] with all of our partners over the phone and we had some questions and we shared our concerns and so our concerns are met.

Now we must look to the future and we have to work all together in order to make the new secretary general successful.

In fact concerning the points you have raised I am aware of some opinions from various circles and this is worrying.

[Breaking in on translator in English] It’s very dangerous and making us disturbed.

[Switching back to Turkish] You know for example even in the EU, some countries whose contributions are smaller may be blocking or vetoing some strategic issues which can be extremely important.

In this present case, if a country has a significant and vital contribution to the organisation, if they have concerns, rational concerns on a concrete subject it is very natural that this should be listened to and responded to. So these points should not be underestimated.

We neither engaged in blackmail nor did we have an irrational request. We acted in a rational logical and in a modern way within the compromise which is a European culture. And indeed in the end we came to an understanding. Therefore I am surprised to see comments of that nature coming from certain countries. I don’t find it terribly in line with the European spirit.

There’s been a lot of speculation about exactly what guarantees given allowed Turkey to overcome its objections [to Rasmussen’s appointment]. Can you able to tell me how president Obama was able to convince you?

Gul: I prefer not to communicate through newspaper headlines. We should look to the future. We should make Nato and the new Secretary General successful.

One issue in particular is causing friction in Nato now – the difficulties over EU-Nato cooperation where of course Cyprus plays a part. Is this an issue where Turkey would be able to make some kind of gesture that would make the issue less sensitive?

Gul: In fact if there’s going to be a gesture I think there should be a gesture to us, not from us… We make more contribution, a more strategic contribution and more sacrifice. Not others.

This is very important. I was foreign minister for 5/6 years and at all of our meetings in Nato in the EU I have told my colleagues time and again that we have to solve this problem on time, as soon as possible because in the future it is likely to poison some more important and strategic issues.

So the world is a very fragile place and there is a big potential for problems, there are big threats and there may be times when we need even stronger cooperation. This problem might hijack the huge issues and prevent us having a huge solidarity so therefore I used to warn all my colleagues, let’s solve this problem in a fair manner. I was warning them many times…

You are right, it’s a problem in the EU. It’s a problem that the EU and Nato have not been having very healthy and full cooperation. But it’s not because of us. It’s because of the others.

Are you worried that time is running out for talks to solve the Cyprus issue?

Gul: We are very serious for a solution. We really wish this problem to dissolve – I’m not making propaganda, we proved this in 2004. We took the risk, we compromised, we challenged inside and we made sacrifices and the plan was put to a referendum on both sides. So Turks and Turkey said yes, the other side rejected.

What else we can do? Anyway, that’s old, we start again and we have a full intention to reach a comprehensive solution over there. That’s why we have full support behind president Talat. We wish this problem to be over very soon. Once the problem is over we believe that Turkey, Greece and the whole of Cyprus can be another pillar in the EU with full cooperation. This is our real desire, this is our vision. Once, when it was not a joke, in 2004 we proved ourselves, so we have the credibility.

Is it helpful for the US to intervene in support for Turkey’s EU bid – or the reverse?

Gul: We do not ask them to do it. They’ve done these public declarations because of their strategic approach, and nobody should be disturbed by this, because in the end the decision regarding Turkey is the decision of members of the European Union and nobody will be making this decision under pressure. All member states made their own decision – by unanimity and of their own free will – to start membership negotiations with Turkey… This is not likely to happen under pressure. They have elaborated and studied the matter to see whether Turkey is an asset or not and they came to the conclusion that it’s probably an asset

[The decline in domestic support for EU process] is not because its taking a long time. But some public statements coming from some member states are upsetting public opinion and undermining the credibility of those states. Because they are then in conflict with their own signatures, their own commitments. In the meantime the negotiation process is going on and Turkey is amending its laws and regulations and constitution to harmonise with the Community acquis… In any case we are going to continue with our reform process because these are our reforms and we want to do them ourselves.

April 9, 2009
Azerbaijanis in Germany against opening of borders

Baku – APA. “The Azerbaijanis living in Germany are concerned over the talks on the reopening of Turkey-Armenia border,” says the statement issued by German Azerbaijanis Coordination Center, press service of State Committee for Diasporas told APA. The statement says that such a point in the relations of the two fraternal countries having close historical roots was unexpected for Azerbaijanis.
“From the very beginning of Karabakh conflict Turkey has supported Azerbaijan, cut off all relations with Armenia, stated that the relations with this state can not be restored unless the occupied Azerbaijani territories are released. Azerbaijani people are concerned over Turkey’s giving up this statement and regard such steps as blow on Turkey-Azerbaijan relations,”
German Azerbaijanis Coordination Center says that removal of the fraternal country’s support even under pressures may have a negative influence on the settlement of Karabakh conflict.

April 8, 2009
Yes to a NATO Turkey, no to a European Turkey

Mostafa Zein Al-Hayat – 07/04/09//

Enter NATO with us. Give us your military strength so that we can together defend our borders. We will contain Communism, coming from Russia. We will confront the nationalist currents that are dangerous to us and to Israel. It is no matter if religion is used in this battle. Spread your moderate Islam in the Middle East. But do not come near our European Union, for you are, despite your moderation, backward and different.

This is a summary of European-Turkish relations ever since Kemal Ataturk declared in 1923 his affiliation with the old continent, deluded into thinking that replacing Arabic letters with Latin ones and eliminating the tarboush and the hijab would forge a new identity and erase the long history of enmity between the two sides. It was a relationship that turned Turkey, with its strategic and historical weight, into a mere military arm of NATO.

The best expression of the racist view toward Ankara, despite the need for it, might have come in the speech by French President Nicholas Sarkozy, answering President Barack Obama’s call on the EU to admit Turkey as a member. During the Euro-American Summit in Prague, Sarkozy said, “I work hand in hand with President Obama, but with regard to Turkey’s joining the EU, the decision lies with member states.” He added: “I have always opposed this membership and will continue to do so. I believe that the overwhelming majority of EU states supports France’s position… Turkey is a very big country and an ally of NATO and of the US, and should remain a privileged partner. However, my position will not change.”

Privileged partnership is not the position of the French right alone, as the left shares this vision. In his book “Yes to Turkey,” the French Socialist Michel
Rocard (prime minister under Francois Mitterand and a deputy in the European Parliament) maintained that Ankara’s joining the EU was “a life insurance policy” for Europe. But at the same time, he said that this gift should come in 2023, on the centennial celebration of Turkey’s founding, after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire. Until then, the EU should work on gradually absorbing Turkey into its institutions, through a privileged partnership that will see it abandon its cultural criteria, to be in line with European standards. Rocard does not forget to recommend that it join, beginning now, common security policies, in order to participate in achieving geopolitical goals for Europe. These include standing up to Iran, and assisting in the control of sources of oil.

The European left and right want Ataturk’s military, but not its culture. The ruling Justice and Development Party, with its moderate Islam, will remain outside the gates, to fend off attacks and spread its message in its own surroundings. It has now begun to play this role, by trying to recover the Ottoman relations, albeit modified, with the Middle East and Central Asia.

April 8, 2009
EU needs to open energy accession chapter with Turkey

ALEXANDROS PETERSEN

06.04.2009 @ 12:08 CET

EUOBSERVER / COMMENT – The White House is touting President Obama’s visit to Turkey as the cure-all that will not only put US-Turkey relations back on track, but help to resolve some of Europe’s energy security concerns.

However, media attention has focused on Mr Obama’s campaign pledge to refer to Turkey’s “genocide” of Armenians in the 20th century, and whether he will backtrack on that language in deference to his hosts. When it comes to the region’s energy geopolitics, however, it is to Turkey’s relations with another Caucasus neighbour, Azerbaijan, that Mr Obama should turn his focus.

The Bosphorus straits: Turkey is a vital energy route for Europe (Photo: wikipedia)

One nation, two countries is what they used to say about Azerbaijan and Turkey. Their culture, language and heritage have much in common, and since Azerbaijan’s conflict with Armenia in the early 1990s, Turkey has supported its linguistic brethren by keeping its border with Armenia closed.

In the past few months, however, Azerbaijani-Turkish relations have become significantly strained, not just because Ankara is entertaining closer ties, including an open border, with Yerevan, but because Ankara and Baku are locked in a struggle over natural gas supplies to Europe. Interestingly, exactly the same issue has at the same time fostered increasingly close relations between Azerbaijan and Greece.

Turkey turning into energy trader with EU

At issue is the so-called Turkey-Greece Interconnector gas pipeline, which is to be eventually expanded across the Adriatic to Italy.

Once completed, this route would theoretically bring Azerbaijan’s Caspian gas resources to energy-hungry southeastern Europe, helping to ameliorate the EU’s overdependence on Russian reserves.

The idea conjured during the Clinton administration, and still pushed by Mr Obama’s newly appointed officials, is that Turkey will serve as an alternative corridor, not under the control of unpredictable decision-makers in the Kremlin.

But, as Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan has become increasingly frustrated with the EU’s mixed signals on membership for Turkey, he has pointedly chosen to emulate Moscow in Turkey’s energy relationship with the Union.

As the EU continues to stall on opening the energy chapter of Turkey’s accession negotiations, Ankara’s policy is now to become an energy middle man, not an energy partner for Europe.

So, instead of being a conduit for Azerbaijani gas to Greece and elsewhere on the continent, Turkey is now attempting to strong-arm Baku into selling its gas at discount prices to Ankara, so that Turkey can sell it at almost four times the price to European consumers.

Russia’s attempt to do this with Caspian gas during the past two decades is exactly what prompted countries like Azerbaijan – and attracted US involvement – to seek alternative routes such as Turkey.

Now, Azerbaijan’s leadership is naturally peeved at Turkish decision-makers, choosing instead to work on the other piece of the corridor, namely Greece.

Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev visited Athens in February and was greeted warmly by Prime Minister Karamanlis as the two countries agreed on cooperation in a number of spheres: economic, political and energy.

The Azerbaijan-Greece intergovernmental economic commission, which has met since 2005, is now stepping up its activities. Greek companies are increasingly investing in Azerbaijan’s still-growing economy, and not just in the energy sector. As Mr Obama courts Turkey, Baku has a greater friend in Athens than in Ankara.

Need for more EU involvement in Black Sea region

Either way, both Azerbaijan and Greece lose out if Turkey remains an obstacle to the expansion of the Turkey-Greece Interconnector.

The crux of the problem lies in the pace of Western integration in the broader Black Sea region. Despite its cultural, linguistic and historical ties to Cyprus, Greece supports Turkey’s EU accession because its leadership is aware of the enormous benefits in regional development, security and cooperation that can be accrued with the broader region’s greater integration.

While Turkish tactics are certainly questionable, Ankara’s strategic EU accession aims are not only legitimate, but central to the transformation of Europe’s periphery.

At the moment, intransigence by EU member states, such as France and Germany, on the

energy chapter of Turkey’s accession process is not only whipping up a backlash in Turkey, but jeopardizing the EU’s energy security and undermining positive links between EU members such as Greece and EU neighbours like Azerbaijan.

If the current conundrum continues, the only way out for Azerbaijan will be to turn to Russia – now offering Baku better prices for gas than Turkey.

Two days before his Turkey visit, Mr Obama will meet Chancellor Merkel and President Sarkozy. If he is serious about helping to ameliorate EU energy security, he will politely remind his French and German counterparts that opening Turkey’s energy accession chapter is the first step in acting in their own interests.

Alexandros Petersen is Dinu Patriciu fellow for Transatlantic energy security and associate director of the Eurasia Energy Centre at the Atlantic Council of the United States.

https://euobserver.com/opinion/27904

April 7, 2009
Turkey’s time has come

Telegraph View: Turkey’s strategic value to the West cannot be overstated

One has only to look at Turkey’s geographical location, wedged between the prosperous, democratic nations of the West and the turbulent, predominantly Muslim regions that lie further east, to understand why President Obama chose Ankara as his first port of call in the Islamic world since his election.

It is not just that Turkey, a long-standing and valued member of the Nato alliance, acts as a strategic bulwark against any possible threat emanating from the east, whether resurgent Russian nationalism or Iranian-style fundamentalism. It is also because the continued support of this relatively moderate, secular state is seen by many in the West as crucial to the success of coalition efforts to effect a similar outcome in countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan. But the disinclination of several leading European powers, notably France and Germany, to give serious consideration to Turkey’s bid for full membership of the European Union risks alienating Turkish support at a time when it is most needed.

Devotees of deeper European integration such as President Sarkozy oppose Turkish membership on the grounds that the accession of a Muslim nation would fundamentally undermine the EU’s Western identity and culture. Consequently, they have raised numerous objections, ranging from Ankara’s refusal to acknowledge the Armenian genocide of the First World War to its dubious human rights record, to keep its application on hold.

But as Mr Obama pointed out in his speech yesterday to the Turkish parliament, by adopting such underhand tactics the EU is wasting a valuable opportunity to build a broader relationship with a valued Muslim ally – one that is based on mutual interest and respect.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/5115953/Turkeys-time-has-come.html

April 7, 2009
Obama rebuilds bridges with Islam

Published: April 6 2009 19:34 | Last updated: April 6 2009 19:34

It is extraordinary to think that an American president should have to make a public speech in a friendly Muslim capital explaining that the US is not at war with Islam. Yet after eight years of the Bush administration and its misguided policies in the broader Middle East, the Pew Global Attitudes Project registered a collapse in support for the US in Nato-allied Turkey to 9 per cent.

There, as elsewhere in the Muslim world, a majority had come to believe that the US, through its policies in Israel-Palestine, Lebanon, Afghanistan and, above all, Iraq, was indeed at war with Islam. The beneficiaries of this political disaster have been Islamists in general and jihadi extremists in particular.

Barack Obama’s deliberate choice of Turkey for his first state visit to a Muslim country is the start of what will be a very long and arduous attempt to turn back the tide.

Why Turkey? Not just because it is a Nato ally. Not just because it is the geographical bridge between Europe and Asia. Not even just because it is a Muslim democracy. Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development party (AKP), is the marriage of an evolved form of political Islam with democracy. The Muslim world’s first, as it were, Christian Democrats are admired in a broader Middle East mired in various forms of extremist-incubating tyranny – not as a model, but as a success.

That is why the AKP’s electoral victory against Turkey’s overmighty generals in 2007, and score-draw against an attempted coup by the judiciary in 2008, are milestones not just for Turkey but the region.

For a US with fewer lines of communication in the region, moreover, Turkey’s open channels – to Syria, Iran and Hamas as well as to Israel or Saudi Arabia – could be valuable.

Turkish support will be important in securing an orderly withdrawal from Iraq, and as a supply platform for and ally in Afghanistan. A US president who opposed the Iraq war is well-placed to dispel the mistrust caused by Turkey’s refusal to allow the Bush administration to use its soil for the invasion – and, indeed, to retrieve a relationship that Washington had frittered away.

Mr Obama sensibly pledged to support Turkey’s promising rapprochement with Armenia. Ankara, especially as it pursues a problematic entry into the European Union, will have to confront Ottoman Turkey’s role in the mass murder of Armenians from 1915 onwards, and establish whether it was centrally directed. But the US Congress’s push to get this declared a genocide is grandstanding that would benefit the nationalist right in Turkey – and blow up a valuable Muslim bridge to the EU and the US.

April 7, 2009