In the UK, it is already clear that the current Conservative Party will lose the general elections to be held on 4 July by a landslide.
In the USA, Presidential elections will be held in the first weeks of November.
In the European Union, elections will take place this week, starting on Thursday morning and ending on Sunday evening. The course of events is contrary to the principles of the formation of the European Union.
Let us go back a little and then I will come to the point.
In 1945, after the Second World War, which ended with the defeat of Germany and the victory of the USA, the leading countries of the European continent, such as England, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, etc., saw becoming a political/economic colony of the USA as salvation in order to develop and return to the old days.
Under pressure from the USA, Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg, Luxembourg and the Netherlands united in 1951 to establish the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) in order to strengthen the coal and steel sectors, the two basic raw materials of industry. The USA tightly controlled the ECSC both politically and economically. All the necessary capital was provided by US companies.
As a second step, in order to expand its export market and to dominate the global economy and the financial world, the US forced the ECSC members and Britain to grant independence to their colonies. It took until 1967 for European countries to grant independence to their colonies. France continued to rule its colonies with critical minerals from behind the scenes until today, as if it had granted independence to its colonies.
Going back to the beginning, it is certain that the Conservatives will lose power and the Labour Party, the main opposition party, will win the elections in the UK, which will start this week and continue until the end of the week. Although the first and second days of the elections will be official working days, voters who cannot take leave from their workplace will be able to cast their votes through methods such as ‘postal voting’ and ‘proxy voting’, which are not in force in our country yet.
In the European Union elections, the nationalist and conservative parties are on the rise, while the Liberal and Green parties are on the decline. Despite the rise, nationalist and conservative parties are divided into two groups within themselves. One group is pro-US and the other is anti-US.
In the European Parliament, some groups will lose seats while others will increase their capitulation. Of course, it is already becoming clear which groups will gain strength. In particular, the Renew Europe group, which includes French President Macron’s list, will lose 17 per cent of its seats. On the other hand, the Identity and Democracy Group (Identity and Democracy), formed by nationalists, will rise two places and take the 4th place.
Although Germany and France, the pillars of the EU, have been in serious disagreement for several years, France, Germany and Italy will increase their number of seats in the Parliament. This indicates that the absolute influence of the USA on the EU will continue.
The most important development will take place after the elections to the European Parliament.
The issue of ‘ending veto rights in the European Union or ending unanimous voting and decision-making processes’ will be on the agenda of the European Parliament.
Over the past 12 months, tens of thousands of EU citizens have submitted their opinions to the ‘Conference on the Future of Europe’, where the future of the European Union and their concerns were discussed. The most important conclusion of the conference was that ‘the European Union must reform in order to survive in tomorrow’s world, and that veto rights in the European Union must end and decisions must be taken by majority vote’.
What will happen as a result? Countries such as the so-called ‘Republic of Cyprus’ will no longer be able to use the European Union for their own political and financial interests with the ‘Veto Right’ and hide behind the European Union.
In summary, it seems that different developments will take place in the coming years, especially in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East geography…
Prof. Dr. (Civ Eng), Assoc. Prof. Dr. (Int. Rel) Ata ATUN
Member of the Advisory Board of the TRNC President
During his press remarks after the Foreign Affairs Council the High Representative on Foreign Affairs of the European Union Josep Borrell voiced baseless and unjustified claims regarding Azerbaijan. He noted that Azerbaijan has territorial claims against Armenia. He had even stressed that the President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev voiced these claims.
To see the issue deeper let’s read through what was said by Mr. Borrell on Jan 22, 2024, during his press remarks.
“…we agreed that Azerbaijan needs to return to substantive peace and normalization talks with Armenia. The latest territorial claims by President [of Azerbaijan, Ilham] Aliyev are very concerning. And any violation of Armenia’s territorial integrity will be unacceptable and will have severe consequences for our relations with Azerbaijan.”
As is seen Mr. Borrell is talking about President Aliyev’s territorial claims against Armenia. But as a citizen of Azerbaijan, plus as a person closely following political developments not only within, but outside of Azerbaijan I can strongly oppose these claims by Mr. Borrell and assure that President Aliyev never voiced territorial claims against Armenia. What I know the President continuously states that Azerbaijan has no intention to occupy any piece of territory of any other country including Armenia.
This is obvious and even Mr. Borrell has an opportunity to contact Mr. Aliyev and ask him if he has territorial claims against Armenia. But as we see Mr. Borrell didn’t dare to do this and check the truthfulness of the claims spread by some propaganda centers. He made himself a tool of propaganda for those centers. Unfortunately…
Now we’ll see which country has the territorial claims against its neighbor. That is Armenia, not Azerbaijan having territorial claims. And we have quite enough evidence to prove this.
Let’s read through The Constitution of Armenia. Just in its Preamble, we can see that Armenia has territorial claims against Azerbaijan! And this is the major soul of that Constitution thus making this country an aggressor.
To see the details let’s read through the mentioned Preamble:
“The Armenian People, accepting as a basis the fundamental principles of Armenian statehood and pan-national aspirations enshrined in the Declaration on the Independence of Armenia, having fulfilled the sacred behest of its freedom-loving ancestors to restore the sovereign state, dedicated to the strengthening and prosperity of the fatherland, with the aim of ensuring the freedom, general well-being, and civic solidarity of the generations, and affirming its commitment to universal values, adopts the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia”.
One who doesn’t know the issue well would say that where is the territorial claim here? We’ll explain.
The Preamble is quoting The Declaration on the Independence of Armenia. And very this document openly expresses territorial claims against Azerbaijan!
Let’s see this time the mentioned Declaration:
“The Supreme Council of the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic
Expressing the united will of the Armenian people;
…Based on the December 1, 1989, joint decision of the Armenian SSR Supreme Council and the Artsakh National Council on the “Reunification of the Armenian SSR and the Mountainous Region of Karabakh”;..
Declares
The beginning of the process of establishing of independent statehood positioning the question of the creation of a democratic society based on the rule of law;..”
This Declaration was adopted on August 23, 1990, and is taken as a basis for The Constitution of Armenia. Mr. Borrell before accusing Azerbaijan of territorial claims against Armenia could look through this Constitution and see the real territorial claimers…
And this is not even the last evidence showing Armenia’s territorial claims against its neighbors. The Constitution of Armenia has one more piece of evidence, this time against Türkiye.
Let’s see again The Constitution:
Article 21. The Symbols of the Republic of Armenia
…The coat of arms of the Republic of Armenia shall depict, in the center on a shield, Mount Ararat with Noah’s ark and the coats of arms of the four kingdoms of historical Armenia…
Thus, once again a person with no imagination about the region would see nothing here. But if look deeper one can see that Armenia has territorial claims against Türkiye. As we know the mount which Armenia calls “Ararat” is a Mount Aghri based in the territory of Türkiye. Why would a country depict a natural object of another country on its national symbol? Where is the logic?
This is one more piece of evidence proving that Armenia has territorial claims against at least two of its neighbors: Azerbaijan and Türkiye. But Mr. Borrell is accusing Azerbaijan of “having territorial claims against Armenia”…
Going through this evidence we can once more see that the EU High Representative Josep Borrell is voluntarily acting as part of the Armenian propaganda machine. But we here in Azerbaijan and other countries of the region were seeing the European Union and its representatives as those who could guarantee more freedom, justice, and well-being for our people…
P.S. Armenia kept under its occupation about 20 percent of the territory of Azerbaijan for more than 28 years. This very Mr. Borrell never talked about Armenia’s obvious occupation while the evidence was very clear. But now he is accusing Azerbaijan for having territorial claims against Azerbaijan while he has no single evidence to prove this…
Attaching the word “Islamic” as a prefix to the negative connotations such as terrorism, extremism, radicalism that are targeting humanity, culture, peace and prosperity causes reaction and disquiets. The presentations that started with such titles at domestic and international scientific meetings becomes contentious, and those who use these negative connotations, usually starting with “Islam”, say they do not mean the religion of Islam, but they use it simply because terrorist characterize themselves so.
A similar phrase that many of us have not yet paid enough attention is “Political Islam”. In a similar sense, the use of “jihad” or “jihadist” at every opportunity is also part of a program that wittingly tries to connect Islam, the religion of peace, with terror. The fact that a terrorist introduces himself with the religion of hundreds of millions of people and says that he acts according to his/her faith is directly related to the aim of the intelligence agency that establish and support that particular terrorist network. The first question to be asked after any terrorist attack is, “What is the aim?” If the EU does not want new refugees, the shortest way is a terrorist attack where civilian people are targeted. At the beginning of the incident, breaking it down on the people connected with the refugees actually reveals the true owners of the attack. As a matter of fact, in recent years it has been seen that the ways of planners of most social terror victims have somehow converged with leading intelligence agencies. In this context, it is necessary to scrutinize the concept of “Political Islam” concept.
In Turgut Özal International Economy and Politics Congress held in Malatya, local and foreign participants made important presentations. Indeed, the program, headed by the Dean of the Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Prof. Dr. Ahmet Karadağ, was more successful than other in many respects. Turgut Ozal’s stastesmanship in staying neutral in the Iran-Iraq War, not falling into the trap of the West during 1980s, was recalled in terms of faulty policies in the Syrian civil war. In 1980, it was important that even the administration that came into force by a coup under the pretext of protecting secularism could have acted prudently without coming to the game. An important part of the presentations were about Syrian refugees. The problem will be one of the hottest topic for social sciences in the next decades.
During the event, I asked a professor from Yarmouk University, Jordan on his study area. The answer was “political Islam.” I pushed him further to know what it means as if I didn’t know anything about. He explained that, especially since the 1960s, Muslim countries are increasingly becoming more conservative and more interested in religious issues, which have gained more importance in politics, and as a result of this, such a concept has become a subject of academic research.
I said that through the examples or actions that they gave me, they are much more practiced by Christians and Jews, and that in this case there should be studies of “political Judaism” or “political Christianity”. He admits that he never thinks about this way.
Many countries in the world, especially Asian and African countries, were the colonies of the western countries for few centuries. Since the World War II, these countries won their independence gradually. Political, economic and social structures in these countries were formed by taking the western-examples. Furthermore, Western countries, former colonialists were generally active in the processes of building these structures. Along with the developments in the field of education in particular, the new generation has fallen into identity crisis. The colonial era of assimilation, denial, de-identity, self-cultivation, and the raising of a generations that bears enmity to its own society and culture was successful to some extent, but it was also the main source of post-independence reactions.
The Islamic world, which has been destroyed by terrorist attacks organized by the weapons of the former colonialists and plots of their intelligence organizations, is looking for way outs from the current hysteria in the international politics, the economic and social and cultural spaces. Unity, solidarity, brotherhood, support oriented rhetoric and politics among Muslim countries are generally voiced loudly but practiced loosely, if ever they are practiced.
The European Union, for example, is a constitutional claim that advocates law, especially human rights, advocates freedom of belief and opinion. However, the organization that started with six countries in its establishment, yet has reached 28 nations, has 12 stars in its emblem representing the twelve apostles. The same emblem is also used for the Organization of South American States, which are Christian countries. Is not enough to enough to take the concept of “political Christianity” into consideration after the recent summit of the European Union under the presidency of the Pope? In a similar sense, even though a substantial part of the population of these countries is non-Christian, in the majority of these countries primary school students do their lessons in the church on certain days of the week. Yet, they never regarded as a Political Christianity or as such. However, when Muslim countries add religious subjects into curricular, they become a matters of “political Islam”.
Religious principles, symbols, practices come to our attention at every opportunity in important institutions that lead the world economy. The State of Israel and its actions are another example. Since the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine, all the domestic and foreign policies of this country have included Zionism rules, Chief Rabbinate of Israel’s instructions, yet, the very concept of “Political Judaism” is hardly ever come to discussion. To me, one of the reasons why Trump is condemned is that he somehow reveals that the founders of ISIL were the US administration! He also said that his country’s intelligence was responsible for the coup attempt of July 15th. However, against such facts, some academicians prefer to be blind, deaf, and dumb.
In this process of the scientific imperialism, “political Islam”, which westerners fabricate with medieval fanaticism and crusader spirit, must be questioned again and again. Those academics, who want to find a place for themselves by wandering it around their mouth like a stinking rotten chewing gum, need to wake up as soon as possible. Those researchers who cannot evaluate the interests of the intelligence organizations with the ones who want to use Islam as their political target, or apply terrorism through the order of conscience and contemplation, are either very unfamiliar with the issues or incapable of making prudent judgement. Of course, there is nothing to say for non-Muslims who do not make their faith a means of hatred and hostility. However, the religion that must be included in the “Political” as a title at the beginning is definitely not Muslim.
When the first results were announced (as there were no exit polls), it became clear that Scotland had lost a once-in-a-generation chance to become independent. This does not mean that Occupied Scotland will stay within the so-called United Kingdom for another 20 or 30 years, but it makes clear that there will be no change for the next 5-6 years for sure.
What was the reason for No-vote to prevail?
Scottish independence leader Alex Salmond and his team underwent a great effort in which a great historical perspective was missing. The Yes-campaign supporters were offered too little of a vision to make of Scotland’s independence their basic need of existence.
Lack of Inspiring Vision & Disregard for Historical and National Identity
As per the details of a presentation elaborated by an outfit of the Yes-campaign , no 1 reason to vote Yes for an Independent Scotland was or should be “Taking Responsibility by moving all Governing Powers to Scotland”; no 2 reason was or should be “Get the Government we choose”, and the minor reasons included financial benefits, irrelevant issues of international affairs (nuclear weapons), and a very weak denunciation of a ‘forced political marriage’ (the innocuous term was coined to describe the nefarious English annexation of Scotland).
A very simple Google search will remove the last doubts about the main reason for which the Yes-campaign failed to gather the support of more than 45% of the voters. If you write “Occupied Scotland” (in brackets), you have around 58000 results only (which is very low a number), and if you search for the contents, you realize that they are mainly historical of nature and they refer to Viking Crusaders, king Edward of England, who was known as the ‘Hammer of the Scots’, and Cromwell! Very scarce links to political analysis and/or editorials can be found in the search.
If Scotland is not viewed by Scots as ‘Occupied by England’, Scots will not find the need to do all that it takes to liberate their country.
This means in other words that, even for Yes-campaign supporters, today’s Scotland is NOT an Occupied country, which is of course very wrong. Certainly, the means and the conditions of Scotland’s foreign occupation are not similar to those attested in Occupied Palestine or Occupied Oromia in Africa, but this reality does not lessen the fact that Scotland has been occupied since 1707, after having been targeted and threatened, aggressed and attacked by England for centuries.
A country is always occupied by an enemy; this is an undeniable fact in World History. There is no such thing as a ‘friendly occupation’. Trying to minimize the inimical character and nature of a foreign occupation does never bode well with the occupied nation’s aspirations and chances to achieve liberation, independence and self-determination.
When a hostile country invades a nation, the occupying forces try to find immoral, corrupt, and idiotic persons that, placing their personal interests above the national interests of their Occupied Land, find it normal, easy and ethical to collaborate with the occupier. Outmaneuvering this plague is by definition one of the major targets and tasks of a national liberation effort.
In the case of Scotland, these catastrophic persons were very active indeed in the last weeks before the referendum, and they intend to remain as such thereafter simply because this issue did not end. The disreputable former prime minister (who was never elected to that post) Gordon Brown is one of them; as he knows how to be a loyal lackey to the City, he has just announced a new Scotland Act to be ready as draft legislation by the end of January 2015 . Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling and their likes know very well that the spectrum of Scotland’s Independence will only become more forceful in the years ahead; and with ridiculous measures of advanced devolution, they try to appease and besot more Scots. These are the enemies who should have been denounced in the most stressed terms.
Unfortunately, First Minister Alex Salmond and the Yes-campaign supporters failed to duly, fully and irrevocably discredit Gordon Brown and his likes as they should. To do so, they should have first properly and adequately presented Scotland as an Occupied Land, and they should have underscored, and focused, on issues of Historical and National Identity. That they did not attempt anything in this direction is clearly shown in their way of presenting the possible reasons to vote No. As per their presentation, no 1 reason is: ‘believing England and Scotland are better off together’. However, for a Scot, this ‘belief’ is tantamount to high treason.
It is exactly the same as if Marshal Philippe Pétain said, after signing the Second Armistice at Compiègne on 22 June 1940, that he ‘believed France and Germany are better off together’. In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that political correctness does not validate (neither does it invalidate) demands for national servility and submission. Simply, national capitulation is a matter of high treason – anytime anywhere.
The lack of an inspiring vision of an Independent Scotland dramatically reduced the scope of the Yes-campaign. National independence is something far higher than mere economic considerations, natural resources exploitation, and cheap anti-nuclear ideology.
What does it matter whether the divorce is going to be ‘messy’ (as per Jill Lawless here: )? And if it is ‘complicated’ to divorce after a 300-year union, it is even more unacceptable to call a foreign occupation merely a ‘union’. Actually, it was not a union; it was a systematic burial of an entire nation, and a sophisticated, yet not brutal, genocide – mainly spiritual, not physical, of character.
Ill-conceived Eligibility
At the practical level, one should however begin pondering about a key issue that, if viewed and considered differently, would change – in and by itself – the result of the referendum automatically.
Who voted for Scotland’s Independence?
For the national independence of a country, only those, who belong to that nation, have a birth right to have a say, and therefore to vote. In this regard, it is paranoid to offer voting right to another nation’s citizens. And it is self-disastrous to offer voting right to the hostile nation’s citizens, who are to be considered as the first enemies of the occupied land, and as the most resolute opponents of the occupied nation’s right and will to achieve national independence.
Quite paradoxically, the 2010 Draft Bill extended the voting right in the referendum to all the British citizens who were resident in Scotland!
This is tantamount to offering the voting right to Nazi soldiers in a referendum held in Occupied France 1940-1944!
Occupiers have by definition no right to decide on anything about the future of the country that they hold captive.
However, a significant number of English, Welsh and North Irish live in Scotland; offering them the voting right in the referendum for Scotland’s independence was indeed the main reason for the calamitous result. According to an estimate, around 500000 English live in Occupied Scotland (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2753400/Revealed-How-half-million-English-voters-living-Scotland-set-block-independence.html). They should have been blocked out of the referendum.
Another paranoid measure was to offer voting right to all the citizens of the 52 other Commonwealth countries and to all the citizens of the 27 other European Union countries who were resident in Scotland. This means that a Sri Lankan, a Nigerian, an Arawakan from Guyana, and a Bulgarian would have a say about the future of a nation to which they did not belong and even did not bother to belong. It should be anticipated that, if invited to participate, these foreigners would only care about per their own interests, and not about the genuine local interests – let alone the interests of Scotland as a nation. As it could be expected, in their majority, they voted against Scotland’s independence.
Another incredible measure was preventing ca. 800000 Scots living south of the borderline between England and Scotland from voting. In fact, all Scottish expatriates did not have a vote, which is a matter of indignation and outrage. As early as January 2012, Elaine Murray, a Labor party member of the Scottish Parliament, demanded that the voting right be extended to Scots living in other parts of the UK, but the debate was opposed by the Scottish government itself! Ridiculous excuses were advanced at the time such as that the UN Human Rights Committee suggested that other nations would question the legitimacy of a referendum if the franchise is not territorial, and the like!
Ill-defined Future
Except the lack of a great vision, the disregard for the National Identity, and the paranoid extension of voting right to the enemies of Scotland’s independence, Alex Salmond and his team made many wrong suggestions and decisions about what Independent Scotland would look like. In fact, they acted as if they intended to minimize as maximum as possible the otherwise shocking dimensions of a secession. This can be really detrimental in politics.
If something, which is shocking by its nature, ceases to be shocking for one reason or for another, people lose their appetite for it and disrespect it altogether. What follows is a list of mistakes ensuing from this very erroneous perception of politics.
If Scotland seceded from England, Elizabeth II would still be the monarch of the kingdom of Scotland. This is preposterous! The Republic of Scotland would be a far clearer vision and a far happier perspective; as such they would motivate a greater number of more enthusiastic supporters. Today, the fact that Scotland and England shared a monarch for almost a century before the two countries ‘united politically’ in 1707 does not matter much. And it certainly does not mean that, after separating from England, Scotland needs to be organized as a kingdom, and not as a republic.
Confiscate Balmoral!
This would be the correct slogan for a passionate debate among only Scots.
Another mistake of the Scottish government was to promise Scottish citizenship to non-Scottish, British citizens living in Scotland, as well as to Scotland-born Britons who live elsewhere. Although this measure showed a certain magnanimous spirit, it would not change in anything the vicious vote intension of the English residents in Scotland. So, as they should never be given a voting right, they should never be promised Scottish nationality.
In a materialistic world, mass media-guided, brainless and thoughtless populations are forced to consider economic issues as vitally important for their otherwise valueless lives. However, assuming that political pragmatism is necessary, one understands the reason economic issues are dealt with great concern by politicians, advocates, activists and campaigners.
But then it was a terrible mistake for Alex Salmond and his team to announce that the pound sterling would remain Scotland’s official currency after a Yes-victory in the referendum. Global mass media tried to portray an Independent Scotland as a small country in a dangerous global environment. Mark Carney, the Governor of the Bank of England, stated even that ‘a currency union is incompatible with sovereignty’ in an indirect form of blackmailing. Yet, the only real economic danger is for Scotland to remain within a financially collapsed state, like England that has a 10 trillion external debt to serve. In reality, escaping from bankrupt England should have been reason good enough even for English residents in Scotland to vote in favor of Scotland’s independence. In this regard a clear language should have been articulated in total opposition to the global mass media and the criminal gangsters of the City.
In fact, there have been bloggers and writers who saw this reality, like Ian R. Crane (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muiZCgC7QB4) and Ellen Brown (https://www.globalresearch.ca/a-public-bank-option-for-scotland/5402542). Ian R. Crane was very right in demanding an independent Central Bank of Scotland, a new currency for Scotland, strict currency controls for at least the first 3 years of Scotland’s independence, nationalization of the energy sector, and Scotland’s immediate withdrawal from EU and NATO. And Ellen Brown was quite correct in her prediction: “If Alex Salmond and the SNP [Scottish National Party] are serious about keeping the Pound Stirling as the Currency of Scotland, there will be no independence”.
In fact, in the atmosphere that enveloped the referendum, there was too much of material concern and a very weak expression of national idealism; this does not constitute the correct combination to speak to the soul of the Scots. Another language will be needed in this regard in perhaps 5 or 10 years. What language? Pure Scottish! As the great Scottish poet and lyricist Robert Burns (1759 – 1796), the national poet of Scotland, put it: “We are bought and sold for English gold. Such a parcel of rogues in a nation”!
According Mary Dejevsky at the Chatham House, entry rules to the UK are a mess.
Mary Dejevsky is a columnist for The Independent, February 2014
The World Today, Volume 70, Number 1
Simple for the wealthy, a source of anger and resentment for the rest
At least all those non-EU citizens wanting to live and work in the European Union now know where Malta stands. If they have a spare €650,000, plus more for dependents, they will be able to treat the whole family to Maltese passports. In so doing, they will effectively buy full access to all 28 EU countries – and the right to visit many others visa-free.
However Malta’s move is viewed – and Brussels is not happy, but currently has no mechanism to prevent it – there is virtue in clarity.
According to Chatham House for a brief period, a limited number of rich people will be able to obtain citizenship of an EU country by contributing to a Maltese development fund. Such paid-for provisions are not unheard of: Britain and others already offer a path to citizenship for £1 million-plus investors.
But Malta’s scheme, as originally concieved, differs in having no residence requirement. It really is offering a passport of convenience.
Some might reasonably object that the fuss about Maltese passports ignores the ease with which members of the global elite – aside from those expressly blacklisted – are already able to cross borders. It is the rest, including the new middle classes of the emerging economies, for whom visa restrictions are burdensome. And frustrated applicants reserve some of their most bitter complaints for Britain.
The point was made pithily a few years ago by the Russian liberal politician, Grigory Yavlinsky, when he spoke at Chatham House. After making a plea for Britain to relax visa restrictions on Russians, he remarked with heavy sarcasm that there were some Russians, including those with dubious pasts, for whom entry to the UK was no problem.
To judge by my inbox, the ill-feeling generated by the British visa system has only increased. Many complaints are about delays, costs and carelessness with crucial documents. But recurrent themes are the supercilious attitude of officials and a perception that the rules are applied both inflexibly – formulaic box-ticking – and arbitrarily.
In recent months, I have learnt of several individuals from former Soviet states whose applications to visit relatives for a short stay have been turned down, even though they have visited regularly over several years. I have also attended conferences where featured speakers have received their visas late or not at all.
Unfavourable comparisons are made with other EU countries in the Schengen zone – the 22 EU members which have abolished passport controls at their common borders – or even with the United States.
Part of the explanation may be the ambivalence and sheer muddled thinking that often seems to prevail at the very top. On the one hand, the British Government has an electoral mandate for a sharp reduction in immigration. Yet its toughest talk concerns prospective new arrivals from Romania and Bulgaria – about whom it can actually do nothing.
On the other hand, it is keen to attract ever more overseas (non-EU) students, while refusing them the right to stay after graduation.
Looking enviously across at France, it also wants many more tourists, especially those, such as high-spending Chinese, of whom France attracted six times more than Britain last year.
To this end, the Chancellor, George Osborne, recently proposed simplifying the visa rules for Chinese business people and tour groups if they were also applying for a visa from one of the Schengen countries. France has since gone one better by providing a 48-hour service. The race for the Chinese yuan is on.
However, Britain’s efforts to be competitive have only introduced more inconsistencies. Membership of Schengen has been rejected by successive UK governments on the grounds that it would mean contracting out border security to other EU countries. Yet, as is now tacitly acknowledged, nonmembership puts Britain at a disadvantage in the tourism stakes. So it has come close to accepting the Schengen visa process in practice, but only for well-heeled Chinese.
One consequence could be resentment on the part of others, including those from the Commonwealth and the former Soviet Union. Individual visitors – relatives, artists, performers or academics – already feel they receive short shrift. Positive discrimination for Chinese business people and shoppers could only make matters worse.
UK visas are a particularly sore point among Russians, with the British authorities stressing security concerns, and Moscow insisting that any liberalization be reciprocal. It would be facetious to suggest that the new arrangements for Chinese could be extended to others – by requiring, say, sponsoring organizations, to include generous shopping vouchers with their invitations.
But should the way to a British visa really lie through Harrods? There must be a more equitable, less mercenary, way.
As the eurozone crisis shows signs of further deepening with the new uncertainties in the wake of Italian ‘non-elections’, Germany is increasingly under strain to keep the European Union intact.
Berlin has to deal not only with the brewing anti-austerity and anti-unionism in the Mediterranean strip of the EU (all the way from Cyprus through Portugal, except, perhaps, France), but also with an uneasy Britain and loudly impatient Turkey on the continent’s both flanks.
In that context, German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s visit to Turkey must be added as another positive step toward melting the icy relationship between Ankara and the EU.
It follows two other important recent steps. First, France unblocked a chapter (of five) of Ankara’s negotiations with Brussels, coming during its current peace talks with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), and secondly, Greek Cypriots overwhelmingly (57.5 percent) voted for the Democratic Rally (DISY) leader, Nicos Anastasiades in the presidential election, a strong signal of a mood change on the island.
Merkel’s visit was long overdue. It has been well-noted that she has visited Turkey only once in three years, while Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has visited Germany four times.
Should it be interpreted as the Christian Democratic Union of Germany (CDU) now being in accord with its coalition partner, the Free Democratic Party (FDP), about the strategic importance, economic performance and crucial democratic transformation of Turkey? Perhaps. Does this mean that the German chancellor comes closer to CDU heavyweights who have been vocally pro-Turkish membership, such as Ruprecht Polenz, Chariman of the Bundestag’s Committee on Foreign Affairs, and gets ready to be challenged by others within?
Could be. Deep down she knows that she has the backing of those CDU strong figures, on central and local level, although a few, about remaining committed to coalition protocol on Turkey’s accession and support for it to continue. But a slight challenge nevertheless.
No matter what,one can hope that the visit and the positive sound of her messages indicate a long-lasting change of mind.
Cynics in Turkey and Germany think they have seen “no progress” between Erdoğan and Merkel on Turkey’s EU accession process. Populist Bild Zeitung, in another outburst of sensationalist Turkophobia, totally insensitive to Turkey’s internationally important democratization process as ever, declared that ‘Turkey would never be a full member of the EU’ — despite its powerful economy. (This view reveals more about some parts of the Europe than Turkey itself).
Bild is joined in Turkey by voices that have been anti-reform, anti-AKP and anti-Europe.
The truth, and the good news, is, Merkel not only endorsed France’s unblocking move, but also signaled that other chapters may follow, with perhaps a second one even before the end of the Irish term presidency in the EU. One understands that she needs to balance very carefully in an election year for Germany on a subject which can shake and stir the votes.
There are many aspects to why Germany should be more active, frank and clear about its relations with Turkey and its policy on the EU negotiations. Pro-EU arguments based on today’s Turkish economy speak for themselves, as outlined by Kemal Derviş, the vice president of the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C., and a former minister of economic affairs of Turkey, for the daily Handelsblatt on Feb. 25, 2013 in an article titled “Die Politik ist am Zug” (“The policy is on track”).
Apart from fine figures on inflation, growth, reduced deficit, employment, strong currency and reserves, German politicians do look with admiration at “hardworking” Turks (a virtue they value highly), when they compare them with the Mediterranean citizens of the EU.
Turkey with such an economy is now too big for Germany to ignore, and far too important to be seen only as a simple trading partner, no doubt. Therefore, the tough visa regulations and the particularly rigid implementation of it attributed to German general councils in Turkey must be eased — liberalized in the sense that, once having passed a security check, Turkish citizens must be given five-year, multiple-entry Schengen visas.
Nor should there be any doubt that increasing defense cooperation through NATO on Syria creates a new momentum for Berlin to realize more deeply Turkey’s significance on the southeastern flank of the continent, as it shoulders increasing burdens. Stability in Turkey, in that sense, can be said to be serving the stability of Germany, and of Europe as a whole.
Merkel did not say much on Turkey’s Kurdish peace process, but given the presence of large, politicized Turkish communities; Alevi and Kurdish diasporas in her own country — take it for granted that solutions on all social rifts here will ease tensions there. Interests overlap.
And in that case, it is demanded that Germany more thoroughly consider indirect, discreet assistance to endorse Turkey in its struggle against historical demons. The EU membership process, kept alive and well, is the best help.
What Bild Zeitung and other populist tabloids do miss is that, what still matters most for Turkey’s reformist camp is the perspective of, and not necessarily, membership.
Given the current turmoil and identity crisis the EU is in, it can be said that there will have to be referendums on Turkish membership — in Europe and Turkey – between now and the final decision. The process is still premature: It needs a decade or more. So, no need for myopia.
Merkel is certainly right in her arguments about Cyprus (that Turkey opens its sea and airports to its flights and vessels), even if it is an issue that still needs time, given the stalemate. Before that, both sides on the island must show a concrete, willful progress on reaching a settlement.
It has become also clear that Erdoğan is willing to resolve the issue in a broader context.
He expects a complementary signal from Anastasiades, and has in mind a “package solution” that should involve Cypriots as well as Greece, energy, security and economic cooperation in Eastern Mediterranean, with the backing of Britain and the U.S.
Germany can play a crucial role, in both EU and NATO context, if Erdoğan’s ideas make any sense.
