Turkish Forum

Category: Europe

  • Boris keeps Turks waiting

    Boris keeps Turks waiting

    Syed Hamad Ali

    Published 10 September 2008

    Ankara’s man in London explains why his country’s place is at the heart of Europe and how after all that talk of Turkish roots Boris still hasn’t found time to meet him

    Did you know Boris Johnson’s great grandfather was a liberal Turkish journalist called Ali Kemal alive during the dying days of the Ottoman empire? Well of course you did. London’s new Tory mayor banged on about his roots a fair bit during this year’s election campaign.

    But the centuries old ties between Turkey and the UK go much deeper than Johnson’s ancestry. Just ask Turkey’s ambassador to the UK, Mehmet Yiğit Alpogan: “Turkey’s membership of the European Union is one of the projects that the Turkish public opinion pay attention to and in that respect the support that Great Britain gives to Turkey is very much welcomed and appreciated.”

    So has he actually met Johnson? “I am waiting for that appointment to happen,” says Alpogan, who seemed just a tiny bit disappointed a request to London’s mayor has yet to be taken up.

    “I know that he is a very busy person and it will be my pleasure to be able to meet him, get together with him, and talk about many things including this past life.” A suitably diplomatic take on the whole matter.

    But if he does feel let down Alpogan can perhaps take some heart from the UK government’s strong support of Turkey’s aspiration to join the European Union. An attitude which contrasts sharply with the more reserved reaction of some of the other EU states such as France and Austria.

    “Turkey’s place is in Europe,” says Alpogan. “There is no question about this.” And the current UK foreign secretary, David Miliband, agrees. In a Telegraph article last year he expressed his approval of Turkey’s accession, highlighting among others the pressing energy benefits: “Turkey is an increasingly important transit route for oil and natural gas, with 10 per cent of the world’s oil flowing through the Bosporus.”

    The Foreign Secretary’s predecessor, Jack Straw, had gone even further and had equated membership as a means towards deflecting a “clash of civilisations”.

    Boris Johnson, too, has spoken in favour of Turkey’s accession to the EU. “We would be crazy to reject Turkey,” wrote Boris Johnson in his book ‘The Dream of Rome’, “which is not only the former heartland of the Roman empire but also, I see, one of the leading suppliers of British fridges.”

    Indeed the UK is the second largest export market for Turkey. For the UK investor also, Turkey is important.

    Yet the question of Turkey’s EU membership is controversial. Polls indicate many citizens across Europe do not approve the move.

    The situation is not helped by opposition from French President Nicholas Sarkozy and his alternative offers of a Mediterranean Union or a referendum over EU accession.

    “If the Europeans say that European Union is a Christian club they are thereby making a discrimination,” says Alpogan. “They are committing a grave mistake. Of course Turkey wouldn’t have a place in such a European Union. But I don’t think that the European public opinion thinks this way … we hope that this understanding will continue to prevail and the European Union will be a place where the alliance of civilisations will be represented.”

    One of the apparent reasons citizens of European states fear Turkish membership of the EU is the prospect of mass immigration.

    The ambassador points, however, towards other countries in Europe whose migrants returned to their home countries sometime after joining the EU, such as the Spanish, Greeks and now the Polish.

    “For a short while it might be true,” admits Alpogan. “But with the investment, economic activity and other developments that come with EU membership, soon these people would go back – at least that is what the history of the European Union shows us and that is how it is proven.”

    Maybe, but that argument may fall on deaf ears in a Europe already brimming with debates over whether immigration has gone too far in this corner of the globe.

    Yet there is one more twist to this whole accession debate. Who is to gain more from this membership, Europe or Turkey? A quick look at Turkey on the world’s map shows just why this nation of 80 million is considered so crucial. Yes it is about trade and access to energy but it is also about regional influence.

    Turkey is the bridge between Europe and Asia.

    And the ambassador is quick to highlight the “geo-strategic” and “geographical” benefits that lie in store for the European Union were Turkey to become a member.

    Then there’s Turkey’s relationship with Central Asian, through a shared Turkic cultural and linguistic heritage with many of those countries, may potentially prove to be the most useful one for Europe in the future given the region being a major fuel reserve for the world.

    But, of course, most European visitors to Turkey go there for one purpose – their holidays.

    According to the ambassador two million British tourists head to Turkey each year and the figures are on the rise at the rate of 10-20 percent. “We have already 20,000 British families who have come and settled in Turkey or have a second home in Turkey,” says Alpogan. “Of course we are very glad to have them there and they are another strong link between the two countries.”

    Indeed although he may not have found the time to meet with the Turkish ambassador, Boris Johnson, just a fortnight after winning the election for mayor in May, disappeared off to the south western coast of Turkey for a break with his family.

    The trip did not go un-noticed by the local media, with the Turkish Daily News reporting that the London mayor’s ancestral ties with their country and Islam would “hopefully be beneficial for Turkey and certainly his choice of holiday destination can only be seen as advantageous for Turkish tourism.”

    Perhaps. Although it may be that it has the reverse effect. Only time will tell.

    Source: www.newstatesman.com, 10 September 2008

  • NAVAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE SOUTH OSSETIAN CRISIS

    NAVAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE SOUTH OSSETIAN CRISIS

    By John C. K. Daly

    Wednesday, September 10, 2008

     

    Last month’s confrontation between Russia and Georgia over South Ossetia had a maritime dimension that continues to expand. Russia deployed elements of its Black Sea fleet to Georgia’s coast during its military operations and subsequently sank several Georgian naval vessels in Poti. During the clash Russia dispatched 10 vessels from Sevastopol to the Georgian coast.

    Following the conflict, the United States determined to send humanitarian relief to Georgia but found its efforts constrained by the 1936 Montreux Convention. Now Moscow, clearly irritated by Washington’s intrusion into what it regards as its southern maritime frontier, has announced that it is deploying significant naval forces next month to the Caribbean for joint naval exercises with Venezuela. Kremlin spokesman Andrei Nesterenko told reporters, “Before the end of the year, as part of a long-distance expedition, we plan a visit to Venezuela by a Russian navy flotilla” (Izvestia, September 8).

    The Caribbean deployment is not insignificant, as it includes the guided missile cruiser Peter Velikii, the largest surface vessel constructed by the Russian Federation since the collapse of the USSR, along with the anti-submarine ship Admiral Chabanenko (El Universal, September 8). Venezuelan Rear Admiral Salbatore Cammarata Bastidas said, “This is of great importance because it is the first time it is being done [in the Americas].” For Caracas, next month’s deployment is a timely riposte to the American administration’s announcement earlier this year that it was reactivating its Fourth Fleet, last deployed in southern hemisphere waters during World War Two.

    In the aftermath of the South Ossetian confrontation, when the U.S. decided to dispatch humanitarian aid by sea to Georgia, it found its initial efforts constrained by the 1936 Montreux Convention, whose 29 articles limit the number of foreign warships that non-Black Sea powers can send through the Turkish Straits to no more than nine vessels with a total of 45,000 aggregate tons. Moreover, they could remain there for no longer than three weeks. The United States had initially considered dispatching the hospital ships USNS Comfort and the USNS Mercy, both converted oil tankers, but as each displaced 69,360 tons, they fell outside the Montreux convention limits. While Washington chafed under the restrictions, there was little it could do.

    Last month NATO dispatched four ships from its Standing NATO Maritime Group 1 to the Black Sea for an exercise scheduled last October. The flotilla included Spain’s SPS Almirante Don Juan de Borbon, Germany’s FGS Luebeck, Poland’s ORP General Kazimierz Pulaski, and the USS Taylor. On August 22 the USS McFaul guided-missile destroyer loaded with humanitarian aid passed the Bosporus headed for Georgia with supplies such as blankets, hygiene kits and baby food, to be followed two days later by the USCGC Dallas cutter passing the Dardanelles. The USS Mount Whitney was also dispatched into the Black Sea with humanitarian aid, which it offloaded in Poti (Stars and Stripes, September 2).

    Before the Montreux Convention was negotiated, both Turkey and Russia had suffered from foreign naval intervention through the Turkish Straits during and after World War One. The Gallipoli campaign was preceded by a joint Anglo-French maritime effort in March 1915 to force the Dardanelles, and the Royal Navy subsequently occupied Constantinople after the war and dispatched vessels into the Black Sea to assist anti-Bolshevik forces.

    The Montreux Convention was intended to replace the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne, which had demilitarized the Bosporus and Dardanelles. Given their recent experience, both the Soviet Union and the Turkish Republic were interested in limiting foreign warships in the Black Sea; and for Ankara, the Montreux Convention was the first international agreement that fully acknowledged its sovereignty and position as successor to the “sick man of Europe,” the Ottoman Empire. Britain, Bulgaria, France, Greece, Japan, Turkey, the Soviet Union, and Yugoslavia ratified the Montreux Convention, which formally recognized Turkish sovereignty over the Turkish Straits. Given that Britain at the time was the predominant naval power in the Mediterranean, the United States was so uninterested in the diplomatic conference that produced the convention that it did not even send an observer to the negotiations.

    The Russian media is now reporting that Washington is negotiating with Georgia and Turkey to establish a naval base at one of Georgia’s Black sea ports in Batumi or Poti, but Ankara is reportedly carefully assessing its position in order to avoid further political tension with Moscow (Gruziya Online, September 7). In a replay of a dispute earlier this year, Russia has temporarily blocked the shipment of Turkish produce into Russia, citing sanitary concerns; and the dispute, which has cost Turkey an estimated $500 million in lost trade, has triggered speculation in the Turkish media that Russia is trying to punish Turkey for allowing U.S. warships to transit the Bosporus (Hurriyet, September 8).

    For those with a sense of history, a factor behind the 1962 Cuban missile crisis was Washington’s deployment of Atlas IRBMs in Italy and Turkey, which, in the wake of the confrontation, Washington quietly agreed to remove, as the development of ballistic missile submarines, the final component of Washington’s nuclear triad, obviated the need for forward basing of nuclear missiles off Russia’s southern shore. Forty years later, Turkey, sea power, and the Caribbean as subplots in rising U.S.-Russian tensions seem as interconnected as ever.

  • Turkish Cypriot leader optimistic about reunification

    Turkish Cypriot leader optimistic about reunification

    ELITSA VUCHEVA

    Today @ 17:27 CET

    EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS – Turkish Cypriot leader Mehmet Ali Talat on Wednesday (10 September) expressed optimism about the in-depth talks on the reunification of Cyprus formally due to start tomorrow, saying he hoped that a solution for the divided island can be found at the latest by June next year.

    “All the elements of the Cyprus problem are known, so it is possible to solve [it] by the end of this year,” says Mr Talat (Photo: European Commission)

     

    “My vision was to finish the negotiations by the end of this year and I believe it is possible,” Mr Talat said at a conference organised by the Brussels-based European Policy Centre think-tank.

    “All the elements of the Cyprus problem are known, so it is possible to solve [it]” by the end of 2008, or at the latest, “before the election of the European Parliament, meaning June 2009.”

    “Hopefully, we will do it,” he added.

    Cyprus – an EU member since 2004 – has been independent since 1960 and divided since a Turkish invasion of the island’s northern part in 1974, triggered by a Greek-inspired coup.

    Currently Northern Cyprus – or the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus – is only recognised internationally by Turkey.

    The Turkish and Greek Cypriot leaders last week launched formal talks on reunifying their island, and good personal relations between them have prompted high expectations regarding the outcome.

    In-depth UN-mediated negotiations on power-sharing are to start tomorrow, but although Mr Talat has on several occasions expressed hopes that a deal could be reached by the end of the year, his Greek Cypriot counterpart has refused to commit to a timeframe.

    The EU’s role

    Mr Talat said the EU could also contribute to these talks and play a role for their positive outcome, as “ending this problem would contribute to the very meaning of the EU and European integration.”

    “We need technical assistance from the EU … to prepare a durable settlement within the European system,” he underlined.

    “Of course we cannot ask for political assistance, since the EU does not have – as the United Nations – a huge accumulated knowledge regarding the Cyprus problem.”

    “[Additionally], Greek Cypriots are members of the EU and Turkish Cypriots are out, so the EU cannot be impartial. This is a matter of fact. [But] we need technical assistance from the EU,” Mr Talat said.

    Turkish Cypriots are also hoping the EU can “encourage Greek Cypriots towards a solution, because there are actually very few incentives for [them] to solve the problem.”

    After they joined the EU, “they lost their incentives,” unlike Turkish Cypriots, who need the solution “deadlily,” the Turkish Cypriot leader pointed out.

    Negotiations on the table need to be ‘off the air’

    From the Turkish Cypriot point of view, any kind of agreement – possibly setting out a substantially decentralised state – should reflect the fact that “Cyprus is the home of Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots” and highlight the “political equality” between them as a “crucial” point.

    It should also include safeguards that “neither side can claim jurisdiction over the other” and be put to separate but simultaneous referendums in the two parts of the island.

    For his part, Demetris Christofias, the Greek Cypriot leader, would prefer to have a more centralised federation, worried that substantial autonomy for the north could leave the door open to partition.

    But Mr Talat expressed confidence that through negotiations, they “will be able to succeed in really bridging the different views and solving the problems.”

    He also appealed to his Greek Cypriot counterpart to be more moderate in his comments to the media, insisting that what is still a matter of negotiations should be discussed privately.

    “Exchange of views or negotiations through media is an impossible task … I know that leftists speak too much, so they may not be able to stop talking,” he said jokingly referring to Mr Christofias – currently the only communist president of an EU member state.

    “But please, try. Don’t put your views through the media,” he added.

  • ERMENI GOZU ILE : Georgia’s Adventurous President Saakashvili

    ERMENI GOZU ILE : Georgia’s Adventurous President Saakashvili

     

    By Appo Jabarian
    Executive Publisher/Managing Editor
    USA ARMENIAN LIFE Magazine
     

     

    Much controversy was created with former Soviet Republic of Georgia’s surprise military attacks on Russian peacekeeping forces in South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

     

    The ill-devised attack, authorized by Georgia‘s adventurous President Saakashvili, has effectively triggered an irreversible process that may cost him his career and Georgia‘s territorial integrity.

     

    The 8.8.08 attack broke centuries-old tradition of friendship and alliance with the Russian Uncle to the north, instigating a strong popular backlash in Russian public and governmental circles. Except for Pres. Saakashvili, no Georgian official has ever actively worked to weaken his country’s ties with Russia and actively sought to “integrate” it with the oil interests of the West.

     

    In turn, he earned the status of being a strong U.S. ally in the Caucasus. But the inexperienced Georgian grossly miscalculated the extent of the Russian response, on the one hand, and the lame-duck posture adopted by his neo-con masters in the West, on the other.

     

    On Aug 29, F. William Engdahl, the author of A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order (Pluto Press), and Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation (www.globalresearch.ca), and a contributing writer of Online Journal wrote: “An examination shows 41-year-old Mikheil Saakashvili to be a ruthless and corrupt totalitarian who is tied to not only the US NATO establishment, but also to the Israeli military and intelligence establishment. The famous ‘Rose Revolution of November 2003 that forced the aging Edouard Shevardnadze from power and swept the then 36-year-old US university graduate into power was run and financed by the US State Department, the Soros Foundations, and agencies tied to the Pentagon and US intelligence community.”

     

    On September 1, in an article titled “The ‘Stupidest Guy on the Planet’ Has Lots of Company,” John Taylor of www.antiwar.com, wrote: “Saakashvili acted with such remarkable stupidity and miscalculation that a 38-inch yardstick is needed to measure his foolishness against other famously bad decisions … Did Saakashvili really think the Russians would stand idly by and let him pound their forces in South Ossetia? That the U.S., Israel, or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization would come to his aid? Or that Georgia‘s army could hold off the Russians?”

     

    Unmasking the real face of certain NGO’s, Engdahl added: “But there is more. The NGOs were coordinated by the US Ambassador to Georgia, Richard Miles, who had just arrived in Tbilisi fresh from success in orchestrating the CIA-backed toppling of Slobodan Milosevic in Belgrade, using the same NGOs. Miles, who is believed to be an undercover intelligence specialist, supervised the Saakashvili coup. It involved US billionaire George Soros’ Open Society Georgia Foundation, the Washington-based Freedom House whose chairman was former CIA chief James Woolsey, and generous financing from the US Congress-financed National Endowment for Democracy, an agency created by Ronald Reagan in the 1980s to °do privately what the CIA used to do,° namely coups against regimes the US government finds unfriendly.”

     

    Further bringing Saakashvili’s real persona to light, Engdahl reported: “Since coming to power in 2004 with US aid, Saakashvili has led a policy of large-scale arrests, imprisonment, torture and deepened corruption. Saakashvili has presided over the creation of a de facto one-party state, with a dummy opposition occupying a tiny portion of seats in the parliament, and this public servant is building a Ceaucescu-style palace for himself on the outskirts of Tbilisi. According to the magazine, Civil Georgia (Mar. 22, 2004), until 2005, the salaries of Saakashvili and many of his ministers were reportedly paid by the NGO network of New York-based currency speculator Soros — along with the United Nations Development Program.”

     

    Taylor added: “On an official visit to Israel, Saakashvili proclaimed that the Georgians were ‘the Jews of our time’ and compared Russian President Putin’s anti-Georgian policies to the anti-Semitic decrees of the 18th-century Russian Empress Catherine the Great. He also asserted that his model when refounding the Georgian state was Israel‘s first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion. And Saakashvili did not hesitate to take his case directly to Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations in New York: ‘We need to establish relations with the U.S. Jewish community because you understand better than many in this country the international repercussions with the rest of the world.… I want your help in having better relations with the United States….’”

     

    One wonders if the world Jewry can fathom Saakashvili’s adventurous politics as a “Jew of our time.” By masquerading as a “Jew” of the Caucasus, Saakashvili has certainly brought liabilities to the Jewish quest for healthy relations with Russia and other countries. That’s why the Israeli military specialists and advisers in Georgia “were reluctant to upset the Russians. They need President Putin’s support at the UN to get stronger anti-nuclear sanctions on Iran.”

     

    Engdahl ominously noted that “With Russia openly backing and training the indigenous military in South Ossetia and Abkhazia to maintain Russian presence in the region, especially since the US-backed pro-NATO Saakashvili regime took power in 2004, the Caucasus is rapidly coming to resemble Spain in the Civil War from 1936-1939, where the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany and others poured money and weapons and volunteers into Spain in a devastating war that was a precursor to the Second World War.”

     

    By his misguided military move against Russia, Saakashvili has de facto triggered a counter-“Rose Revolution” process. The process which already yielded Russia‘s trashing of Georgia‘s army may soon bring reversal of fortunes both for him and his masters in Washington and elsewhere.

     

    As for Saakashvili’s Azeri counter-part Pres. Ilham Aliev of Azerbaijan, it is yet to be seen if the junior Aliev has learned from his colleague’s experience to tone down his belligerent rhetoric against Armenia.

     

    One hopes that Aliev’s advisors in Baku are hard at work to convince their boss not to join the club of the “Stupidest Guys” of the Caucasus. After all, like Georgia, Azerbaijan has much to worry about its shaky and unstable ethnic makeup. Nearly 60% of its inhabitants come from restive non-Azeri ethnic groups such Daghestanis, Alans, Lezgis and many others.
     
  • Turkish community warns of continued racism in Germany

    Turkish community warns of continued racism in Germany

    (IRNA) – Germany’s Turkish community warned of continued racism in the country, while marking the 15th anniversary of an anti-foreigner arson attack in the western city of Solingen which killed five Turkish women and girls, the press reported Thursday.

    There is still a high degree of xenophobia in Germany society which has to be combated through better education, stressed the Turkish community of Germany (TGD) and the Foundation of Turkish Studies (ZfT) in a statement.

    “Aggressive behaviour and prejudices are already being taught at the age of a child. Therefore, one must act pedagogically at an early stage,” ZfT director, Faruk Sen was quoted saying.

    There are 7.5 million foreigners living in Germany of which 2.5 million are Turks.

    A recent confidential government report revealed widespread xenophobia among millions of teenagers in Germany.

    Almost every German youth said there are too many foreigners living in Germany.

    Nearly every 9th grader has Islamophobic tendencies while every 13 teenager admits to having committed a right-wing motivated criminal act.

    Germany has been the scene of a series of vicious neo-Nazi attacks in recent months, especially against foreigners.

    German Interior Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble has repeatedly warned of a growing far-right problem in his country, branding it a “steadily growing danger.”

    Schaeuble had voiced concern that the number of far-right crimes between 2005 and 2006 rose from 15,000 to 18,000 offenses, indicating a 9.3 percent increase.

    Meanwhile, the number of anti-foreigner attacks hovered at 511 in 2006, showing a 37 percent rise from the previous year.

    Political observers link the dramatic rise in the number of far-right crimes to the recent success of neo-Nazi parties in key regional elections in several east German states.

    Young neo-Nazis feel also more and more emboldened to commit hate crimes, knowing that police won’t charge them with an offense.

    Most of the suspects implicated in far-right crimes are juveniles.

    Hate crime experts and sociologists have repeatedly stressed that Germany’s political leadership lacked a clear and effective strategy to fight neo-Nazi and racist crimes.

    The Journail of Turkish Weekly

  • The EU, Turkey and Russia: An Unlikely Troika

    The EU, Turkey and Russia: An Unlikely Troika

    Michael Werbowski (minou)

    Published 2008-09-06 04:57 (KST)

    Russia’s strategic comeback, or the Georgian crisis in the Caucasus, might be a blessing in disguise for Turkey, as a realignment of power in Russia’s favor could hasten accession negotiations between Ankara and Brussels. Why? Because the European Union, for obvious trade and energy reasons (aside from defense ones), needs Turkey as a solid strategic partner now more than ever.

    NATO’s Demise and the EU’s Rise

    The multilateral Ordungsmacht, or stabilizing power, that was NATO in the 20th century’s bipolar world, today looks crippled by transatlantic divisions, partly stemming from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Additional fractures over Georgia’s and Ukraine’s status (with the United Kingdom and the United States pushing for further NATO expansion into former Soviet space, while France, Germany and Italy remain very frosty to the idea) have split the cohesiveness of the erstwhile defensive military organization. Overall, NATO looks overstretched, overcommitted, and underequipped. It has so far skillfully concealed these divisions and shortcomings.

    Furthermore, NATO is always on the offensive against its perceived enemies (oil-rich Russia, and radical Islam — also in oil-rich regions). In the 21stcentruy, NATO clearly seeks to play the role of the global cop, with station headquarters in Washington. This is unacceptable to the Russians.

    In Munich in 2007, the West seemed deaf to Moscow’s warnings about putting a missile defense system in their backyard and about NATO’s eastward push. In the summer of 2008, taking advantage of the waning months of a weak and directionless Bush presidency, Russia has made itself heard by using military force in Georgia.

    Moscow has always had legitimate security concerns in the area that stretches from the Black to the Caspian seas. However, if the EU one day begins to carry more diplomatic and military weight in the region, it will do so only with Turkey’s approbation and cooperation. A greater EU role in Europe’s underbelly to the southeast might be more palatable to the tetchy Russian bear.

    A Semipermanent Seat for Turkey at the EU Conference Table

    Russia’s Georgian blitzkrieg triggered the collapse of the post-Cold War order that began in 1989. In this new regional configuration, whereby Russia calls the shots in its “near abroad,” the EU must act as a counterweight in Eurasia to the remerging hegemon. It is for this reason that Turkey can no longer remain on the sidelines of European integration. It must be given a seat at the table of European foreign policy consultations.

    I am not suggesting full EU membership for Turkey by the end of this decade or in the distant future, for that matter. But within the context of an EFDP (European foreign and defense policy), Turkey may one day become an indispensable player. Brussels must face up to this new reality.

    The EU’s ties with Russia often overshadow its ties with Turkey. But this is a flawed policy in the long term. As Mesut Tastekin, a doctoral candidate at Gazi University, points out, areas of great geopolitical concern to the EU are also “risk areas” that include Turkey and are part of Ankara’s purview of interest. Thus, the EU and Turkey have overlapping strategic concerns when it comes to the overall stability of the Black Sea, the Mediterranean and even the Caspian Sea regions.

    As Tastekin asserts, “Turkey stands at the crossroads of the regions which are regarded in the document [the European security strategy document elaborated by Brussels in 2003] as important regions for European security such as the Balkans, the Mediterranean, the near east and the Caucasus.”

    Turkey as the Great Mediator Between East and West

    Turkey has been taken for granted for far too long, despite its growing and obvious geopolitical importance in Brussels. For instance, EU leaders gathered last week to discuss the brief war between Russia and Georgia. Next, a similar emergency EU meeting will tackle the same issue. Yet Turkey, as an “associative member” of the EU, is absent from these crucial consultations.

    This is no mere omission or oversight; it is a great diplomatic error.

    Ankara has proven its diplomatic skills playing the part of the “honest broker” between Syria and Israel. Furthermore, the country has made several good will gestures (most likely with helpful prompting from Brussels) to normalize relations with Nicosia over the issue of a divided Cyprus. And most remarkable of all, by sending the Turkish head of state to Yerevan, the country has made a grandiloquent move to heal the century-old wound between the Turks and the Armenians.

    These are truly impressive and daring diplomatic maneuvers. They will likely bear fruit for Turkey and for its neighbors and serve to strengthen European stability as well. For this reason the EU must consider Turkey a serious strategic partner in its future relations with Russia. In the aftermath of the Georgian-Russian conflict, ignoring Turkey at EU foreign policy making forums is no longer viable.

    Michael Werbowski is a Prague-based journalist who pursued post-Communist studies at the University of Leeds, U.K. He would like to thank Beykent University and the staff of its journal of strategic studies for their kind support and cooperation for making this article possible.

    Source: www.ohmynews.com, 06.09.2008