Turkish Forum English

Category: EU Members

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

  • Turkish Cypriots in bid to grab EU Parliament seats

    Turkish Cypriots in bid to grab EU Parliament seats

    Published: Wednesday 1 April 2009   

    Cypriot officials have rejected demands from the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus to hand two seats in the next European Parliament to MEPs hailing from the breakaway northern part of the island, which has so far only been recognised by Ankara. EurActiv Turkey contributed to this article.

    A group of Turkish Cypriots living in London have warned they are putting the matter before the European Court of Justice, asking for the cancellation of the European elections in Cyprus if their demands are not met. 

    Mehmet Bayramoglu and Münir Tatar want the EU to give two of the six Cypriot seats to Turkish Cypriots, so the northern part of the divided island is represented in the European Parliament. 

    The government of Cyprus strongly resisted the calls. Any move that aims to withhold two Cypriot seats in the EU assembly during efforts to solve the Cyprus problem would not be constructive, Cypriot Foreign Minister Marcos Kyprianou stated on 26 March. 

    “The way these seats are distributed is a matter of internal legislation of each member state and not an EU matter,”‘ Kyprianou noted, recalling that during Cyprus’ accession to the EU in 2004, it was agreed that different provisions could be made should the Cyprus issue be resolved. 

    Given that UN-led negotiations on Cyprus are not expected to conclude before the June European elections, Kyprianou said that the poll should be held under Cypriot legislation, which authorises Turkish Cypriots to vote and even apply for Parliament – but only if they register in the southern part of the island. 

    An EU Council decision adopted in 2004 sets the number of EU elected representatives in Cyprus at six. However, it adds that elections shall not be held in the northern part of the island, where “the government of the Republic of Cyprus does not exercise effective control”. 

    In the event of the entry into force of a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem, the Council states that the term of office of the elected MEPs from Cyprus shall end, and extraordinary European elections shall be held throughout the whole of Cyprus. 

    Cypriot officials told EurActiv that almost 80,000 Turkish Cypriots, who have acquired the new identity card of the Republic of Cyprus and are eligible to register as voters, have also the right to be included on the special electoral list for the European Parliamentary elections. 

    The government of the Republic of Cyprus has even simplified identification formalities, allowing voters to participate on polling day by merely presentating their Republic of Cyprus identity cards, an official added, stressing that Turkish Cypriots in possession of the new identity card could register as voters, stand as independent candidates or register political parties. 

  • Cyberspace and the National Security of the United Kingdom: Threats and Responses

    Cyberspace and the National Security of the United Kingdom: Threats and Responses

    chatham house

     

     

     

    Chatham House Report
    Paul Cornish, Rex Hughes and David Livingstone, March 2009

     

    Society’s increasing dependence on Information and Communications Technology (ICT) infrastructure creates vulnerabilities and corresponding opportunities to be exploited by unscrupulous actors. Whether through online financial fraud, the dangers posed by hacking, cyber-attacks, or the extensive use of the internet by terrorists and other extremists, the risks to international and national security are increasing.

    But cybersecurity is not just the concern of governments, commercial enterprises, or individuals. Cybersecurity is an issue which concerns all of society, particularly as we become ever more dependent on the global information and communications infrastructure.

    The International Security Programme at Chatham House is undertaking a range of work which seeks to analyse the key challenges and identify policy responses, particularly for the UK.

    Cyberspace and the National Security of the United Kingdom

    The political cultural context for countering cyber-threats to the United Kingdom cannot be static and reactive. Instead it must be a dynamic interaction between policy-makers and technologists. Sponsored by Detica, this major new project seeks to engage government, private sector, academic and other specialists in high-level analysis of cybersecurity challenges and responses. It aims to provide a forum for constructive exchange in which the possibilities and limitations of technology can be fully explored, and in which the parameters of public policy-making can be more closely understood by those charged with developing the technological dimensions of security policy.

    The project is divided into four modules:

    1. Defining the threat: this will identify the central features of the cybersecurity challenge and examine innovative methodologies for threat analysis and response.
    2. Policy for the virtual world: this will ask how government should respond to the increasing use of virtual worlds for concrete and often malign purposes.
    3. International collaboration: this will assess the scope for enhanced multilateral co-operation to meet international cybersecurity challenges.
    4. Privacy, liberty, security and the law: this will examine the means by which an open society can balance the demands for security and surveillance on the one hand, with privacy and civil liberties on the other.

    Findings from the first phase of the research, ‘Defining The Threat’, have now been published in a Chatham House Report – Cyberspace and the National Security of the United Kingdom. The report provides a general overview of the problem of cybersecurity and makes the case for a more coherent, comprehensive and anticipatory policy response, both nationally and internationally.

    Details of the launch event >>

    A roundtable summary from July 2008 is available which provides an overview of the discussion on Terrorism, Radicalisation and the Internet.

    Cybersecurity and the European Union

    Alongside the work on the implications of cybersecurity issues for the UK, research has included an assessment of the European Union as an international organization with a fragmented yet developing interest in cybersecurity.

    The research has included a paper, Cyber Security and Politically, Socially and Religiously Motivated Cyber Attacks, published in February 2009, which was requested by the European Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs and carried out within the framework agreement between ISIS Europe and the European Parliament.

    Further Information

    For more information please contact Molly Tarhuni.

    Chatham House

  • Protest action in the Netherlands on the occasion of March 31, the Day of Genocide of Azerbaijanis

    Protest action in the Netherlands on the occasion of March 31, the Day of Genocide of Azerbaijanis

    Baku–APA. Benelux Azerbaijanis Congress and Azerbaijani-Dutch Solidarity Society held protest action in Rotterdam, the Netherlands on the occasion of March 31, the Day of Genocide of Azerbaijanis, press service of the State Committee for Work with Diaspora told APA. Representatives of the Azerbaijani and Turkish, as well as Polish communities joined the action. Nearly 150 young people, worn white T-shirts with the map of Azerbaijan and its occupied territories and number of genocide victims, participated in the protest action. The protesters chanted slogans in Dutch, condemning the genocide committed by Armenians against the Azerbaijani people. Nearly 10 leaflets in Dutch describing details about the genocide against Azerbaijanis were spread among the local residents.

  • Number of Bulgarians Traveling Abroad Shows Steady Decline

    Number of Bulgarians Traveling Abroad Shows Steady Decline

    The number of trips made by Bulgarians abroad has been reduced by 25% in the course of one year.

    The data was released by the National Statistics Institute.

    The number of trips abroad in February 2009 is one fourth less than those in February of 2008 with a reduction for all countries for which data is collected.

    The most significant decrease is registered for Israel – 62% down, followed by Slovenia (60%), Denmark (59%), Norway (58%), Finland (56%), Sweden (54%) and others.

    Only trips to Turkey register an increase of 10%.

    The number of trips abroad is steadily declining for the fourth consecutive month and from November 2008 to February 2009, there is a reduction of 66,000 trips.

    Half of the Bulgarian trips abroad are business ones.

    In comparison, most of the foreigners’ trips to Bulgaria are for vacation purposes (37%). In February there is a decrease of foreign trips to Bulgaria for all countries for which data is collected, compared with February of last year.

    The most significant reduction is for trips of Hungarians (36%), followed by the Swedish and the Slovenians (34%) among others.

    From European countries, non-members of the European Union, the Serbs register the biggest reduction of trips to Bulgaria (31%), followed by the Norwegians and the Russians (19%).

    The only increase is Canada – 6% more trips compared to February 2008.

    In 2008, Bulgarians have made a total of 5,7 M trips abroad, which is nearly 30% more then in 2007.

     

    www.novinite.com 28 March  2009

  • Why Turkey belongs to the EU

    Why Turkey belongs to the EU

    Sigurd Neubauer
    Friday 27 March 2009 – 07:30

    With its geographical location, at the crossroads of an East-West and North-South axis, Turkey has played a dominating geopolitical role from the days of the Ottoman Empire to the present. In recognition of Turkey’s strategic position, President Harry S. Truman was quick to incorporate Turkey into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). As the alliance is celebrating its 60th anniversary, Turkey is again at a crossroad. This time, the choice facing the Turkish Republic is whether Ankara should continue its path towards becoming a full fledged member of the European Union, or if Turkey should adopt a “neo Ottoman” foreign policy brokering conflicts between Israel and Syria and between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

    Beyond its broad foreign policy implications, Turkey is also facing a significant internal identity crisis where traditional urban pro-Western elite are being challenged by a new and emerging conservative bourgeoisie originating from the Anatolian heartland. At the center of this power struggle, is the current ruling Islamic Development Party (AKP) led by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan vis-à-vis the Turkish military establishment.

    Turkey’s powerful generals have long seen themselves as the “guardians” of secularism as they adhere to the principals of “Kemalism,” laid out by the Republic’s founder, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk (1881-1938). “Ataturk,” or “father Turk,” as his people called him, emerged on the political stage during the vanishing days of the Ottoman Empire. During these turbulent times, as pockets of Turkish populated settlements were threatened by increasing nationalism in the various regions of the empire, the young and ambitious army officer, Mustafa Kemal, was to become one of the most notable military leaders and statesmen of his generation.

    Transition from Empire to Republic

    From a small principality on the frontiers of the Islamic world at the turn of the 14th century, the Ottoman Empire became the most powerful state in the Islamic world stretching from central Europe to the Indian Ocean under the reign of Suleiman the Magnificent (1520-1566). Following the long wars of the 17th century, the Ottoman Empire declined as a world power in favor of the European mercantile powers. By the mid 18th century, what was left of the once mighty empire became known as the “sick man of Europe.” Despite countless reforms of the civil and bureaucratic structure, Ottoman political life continued under European tutelage.

    Recognizing Turkey’s state of decay, Ataturk envisioned a strong, independent, and secular republic. According to noted Ataturk biographer, Lord Kinross: “Ataturk differed from the dictators of his age in two significant respects: his foreign policy was not based on expansion but on retraction of frontiers; his home policy on the foundation of a political system that could survive his own time.” Some of the republic’s early reforms were instituting a constitutional parliamentary system in 1923, followed by the introduction of the Swiss Civil Code in 1926. From a legal perspective, the Swiss Civil Code replacing traditional Sharia laws was an important step in the direction of westernization of personal, family, and inheritance laws. Other significant changes promoted by the Kemalists were adopting the Latin alphabet, western numerals, weights and measures, and gender equality.

    Military and Democracy

    The political system during the early Kemalist era remained a one party state, where no legal opposition was active until after World War II. Turkey has since come a long way in its democratization effort, despite brief military interventions in 1960, 1971, and 1980. Each time, the generals provided important exit guarantees that enhanced the military’s position, yet civilian control of the Republic has prevailed, as Turkey has become a competitive multiparty system.

    With the reelection of the AKP in 2007, Prime Minister Erdogan has secured his base as he openly challenges Turkey’s ancient regime, on a verity of issues from the headscarf ban to, as the only NATO ally, inviting Iran’s controversial President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Istanbul. The notion that “Turkey has to follow an integrated foreign policy and cannot have priority with the EU at the expense of its relations with the Middle East—as advocated by senior AKP officials—is a clear break with Kemalist foreign policy. Yet at this critical juncture, it is important for Europe to fully embrace Turkey. Because of its strategic location and economic ties to continental Europe, the Balkans, the Caucasus, the Mediterranean, and the Black Sea region, Turkey can fully complement the EU on a variety of issues from trade to security. In particular, Turkey can provide the European markets access to rich energy resources from the Middle East and Eurasia.

    The battle for Eurasia

    On the other hand, the Turkish government has shown increasing frustration, not only with U.S. policies towards the Middle East but also with the EU’s refusal to seriously consider its bid. Should Europe fail to embrace Turkey, this could be a fatal push of Turkey into the Russian orbit. Despite historical mistrust, Turkish-Russian economic ties have greatly expanded over the past decade, reaching $32 billion in 2008, making Russia Turkey’s largest trading partner. By taking advantage of cooling relations between Ankara and Washington, Moscow is determined to expand its sphere of influence over the black sea region and Eurasia. Through an aggressive trade and investment policy, Russia skillfully outmaneuvered the United States by closing its airbase in Manas, Kyrgyzstan.

    In the great powers struggle for influence, Turkey is an indispensable piece, too precious for the West to lose. Instead of remaining a “Christian Club,” the European Union should overcome its historical fear of “the Turks” and recognize that as a NATO member, Turkey will prioritize its ties with the United States and the West; as an EU member, Turkey will continue to cherish democracy, liberalism, and secularism. Europe turning its back on Turkey could be the nail in the coffin for an occidental oriented foreign policy and a secular national identity.

    Source: The Diplomatic Courier (USA), 25-03-2009

  • “Terrorism Supporter” to be the Secretary General of NATO?

    “Terrorism Supporter” to be the Secretary General of NATO?

    By Sedat LACINER

    NATO has started to take on new roles, especially after the Cold War period, among which combating international terrorism is its first priority. The expansion of NATO’s operation area from the former Yugoslavia to Afghanistan is also a new development NATO is operating among religiously and ethnically diverse populations from numerous regions. Hence, the Organization’s operation locations ”at an equal distance from all religions and cultures” is of the utmost importance in accomplishing its mission. NATO is currently preparing to welcome its new secretary general, and Denmark’s Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen is in the lead, among the other strong candidates, in consideration for this post.

    The US, Germany, and other significant NATO members have already asserted their support for Rasmussen. Moreover, Denmark has been conducting lobbying campaigns in support of its prime minister. Yet, since Rasmussen has an unfavorable record in combating terrorism and in conducting dialogue between civilizations, he is the worst candidate for the NATO or any organization of this kind:

    * Copenhagen Is Broadcasting “Terrorist TV’

    First, Rasmussen tolerated the PKK’s (Kurdistan Worker’s Party) activities in Denmark, and gave permission to the terrorist organization launching a television channel in Copenhagen: Roj TV, perceived as a culture channel by the Danish authorities, which enhances the so-called suppressed Kurds’ language and culture. However, to ignore the close relations between Roj TV and the PKK, one should be blind or malicious.

    The TV channel repeatedly broadcasts PKK terrorists to the screen. Moreover, most of these terrorists are well known some are leaders of the Organization or even suspects on Interpol’s wanted list.

    Moreover, the TV channel calls Kurdish people to perform acts of violence and terrorism against Turkey every day. Despite the fact that inciting violence is banned by the EU and Danish law as well, Denmark did not take any measures to discourage this persistent malice.

    Turkey has warned Denmark on the matter numerous times. Not only Turkey, but also the United States (US) has pointed to dubious relations between Roj TV and the PKK and called for the channel to be shut down. Yet the Rasmussen Government did not take these warnings seriously, only postponing the solution by saying, “The police are investigating the issue,” or “our judges are going to focus on the matter.”

    The terrorist relations between Roj TV and the PKK were obvious and the Danish government did not need any clues to figure out this connection. MED TV, the first channel established by the PKK, was banned by the British television authority ITC in 1999. The terrorist organization then moved its TV channel to France, under the name “MEDYA TV.” However, the France did not welcome the channel either, and it was closed down by the court after a short period of broadcasting.

    The PKK moved to Denmark after the UK and France and found a government willing to help its cause. While Roj TV was broadcasting from Denmark, it was banned in Germany due to its terrorist roots. The PKK’s reaction to Germany’s stance was to kidnap German mountain climbers in Turkey. However, Germany did not yield to the PKK’s blackmailing and insisted on its decision on banning the TV channel. Indeed, the PKK is labeled in Danish law as a “terrorist organization” as it was by the US, the EU, the UK, Germany, and Turkey. Yet, Rasmussen continues to protect the terrorist organization’s activities by tolerating them. Thus, the PKK and its branches have freely carried out their activities in Denmark as if it was a civil society organization.

    Now, the prime minister of this government, who has turned a blind eye towards terrorism, and is even seen as a supporter of terrorism, is preparing to be the head of NATO which regards combating terrorism as one of its primary missions. If Rasmussen becomes the Secretary General of NATO, this could possibly affect numerous NATO policies, especially those related to combating terrorism. Moreover, this could lead many countries including but not limited to Turkey, to question their confidence in the Organization’s policies.

    * Cartoon Crisis

    Rasmussen’s stance during the “Cartoon Crisis” is another fact which makes him a weird figure for the Secretary General of NATO.

    Just after the release of the caricatures in Jyllands-Posten newspaper on September 30th, which picture Muslims and their prophet as terrorists, Turkey warned Denmark to be aware of the incoming danger. Ambassadors of ten Muslim countries pioneered by former Ambassador of the Republic of Turkey to Denmark sent a signed petition to the Prime Minister Rasmussen to protest the events. The ambassadors asked for a meeting with Rasmussen to evaluate the crisis and call for the peace atmosphere. Turkey aimed to bring the representatives of the Muslim countries in Copenhagen and the Denmark Government together during that crisis. However, Rasmussen did not appraise Turkey’s good will and his government implied that they did not need Turkey’s mediation on the issue. Rasmussen rejected the meeting request rudely. The caricature crisis spread to all Muslim countries as a result, and more radicals like Iran became dominant in anti-Denmark campaigns gradually, yet decisively. Whilst Denmark’s interests started to be damaged from these campaigns, Rasmussen declared that he personally condemned the caricatures, yet, he continued to evaluate the issue within the context of freedom of speech. His management of crisis was not only unsuccessful but also was narrow sided. Rasmussen ignored dialog and underestimated Turkey and its soft power. Today, for many Muslims, Denmark is a country which insulted their Prophet.

    Is not the Rasmussen’s taking post going to disrupt NATO’s operations in Afghanistan while the perception toward Denmark is highly problematic among the Muslim countries?

    * Turkey’s EU Membership

    Rasmussen’s opposition to Turkey’s EU membership on the ground that Turkey has a different cultural-religious background is the third reason which damages Rasmussen’s image in the eyes of Turkey and Muslim countries. For Rasmussen, who seems as if he does not make religion based politics, Turkey does not have a place in the EU.

    Rasmussen had a significant role in Denmark’s opposition to Turkey’s EU membership as contrary to the stance of other countries in the Northern Europe. The Prime Minister also chose to support Turkey’s opponents whenever Turkey had a disagreement with other countries. His behavior towards Turkey was scorning and perception of Turkey for Rasmussen was “an Eastern country waiting at the EU’s door.” Resembling to Europe’s fanatical rightist politicians, Rasmussen became a problematic figure who discourages Turkey on the way to the EU membership.

    Since he has been opposing Turkey’s EU membership as the first Muslim country to be in the EU, it is not hard to guess to what extent Rasmussen would damage the relations between the NATO and other Muslim countries.

    ***

    Indeed, it is like a bad joke

    While we were happy for getting rid of the Bush administration, Danish version of Bush is preparing to be the head of NATO during the Obama presidency.

    slaciner@gmail.com

    Sedat LACINER: BA (Ankara), MA (Sheffield), PhD (King’s College, London University)

    ***
    Translated by Dilek Aydemir, USAK
    Language Edit by Kaitlin MacKenzie, USAK

    Source: Journal of Turkish Weekly, 26 March 2009