TERMS OF ENTRY OR NO ADMITTANCE?

During a visit to Cyprus in January, German Chancellor Angela Merkel came out with what many observers thought was sharp, skewed criticism of Turkey's position on a settlement to the Cyprus question. "We see that you (Greek Cyprus - writer) are taking a number of steps, and we also see no appropriate response from the Turkish side. The international community recognizes the Republic of Cyprus, governed by Greek Cypriots, and it does not recognize the self-proclaimed republic in the north of the island. The leaders of the Cypriot communities conduct talks on reunification of the island, but without any noticeable progress. Turkey officially supports the process, but at the same time it backs Dervish Eroglu, the Turkish Cypriot leader, who favours two independent states on the island," said Merkel. The German Chancellor described the talks on Turkey's entry into the EU as positive, "whatever their outcome". Merkel recalled that Turkey had an obligation to extend to Cyprus the terms of the protocol signed with the EU and therefore to open up Turkish ports to Greek Cypriot vessels. However, Turkey does not recognize the Republic of Cyprus and is in no hurry to implement the protocol signed in Ankara in 2005.

Ankara decided unilaterally to sign this document (a supplementary protocol to the Customs Union) once agreement had been reached with the EU to start talks on Turkey's progress to full membership of the European Union, rather than as a privileged partner, upon which Merkel had insisted for so long. The protocol provides for cooperation with the ten latest members of the EU, in particular with Southern Cyprus, which was accepted into the European Union in December 2004. Turkey and the EU were due to have talks to find a common denominator on the 35 clauses which are essentially the preconditions for Turkey's admission to the common European home. Ankara is currently holding talks on 11 clauses, including the Cyprus question. Merkel herself admitted in Nicosia that these conditions are really special restrictive barriers to obstruct Turkish membership of the EU: "We have placed a number of restrictions on the talks on entry. Until Turkey implements the Ankara protocol, she cannot close any of the 'chapters' (of the talks) and not a single 'chapter' has yet been closed." That is probably why, in 2005, EU representatives stressed that the start of talks still does not guarantee Turkey's entry into the EU.

At the same time, the history of the Cyprus conflict shows that it would be unfair to place responsibility for the lack of progress towards a settlement on Turkey. Ankara and the Greek Cypriots have often shown the political will to solve the problem of reunification. But obstacles are being placed by Nicosia, supported by Athens and, clearly, the European Union.

Reunification talks have been going on for years but have failed to yield a result. Only former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan managed to propose five versions of a settlement to this question. Each one was rejected by the Greek side. After many trials and tribulations the process culminated in a UN proposal which became known as the Annan Plan. It was first presented to the two sides in November 2002; the final version appeared in March 2004. According to the plan, a referendum was held on the island's reunification in April of that year. About 76 per cent of Greek Cypriots voted against the plan, unlike the Turkish Cypriots, the majority (about 65 per cent) of whom supported it. Speaking at the 60th session of the UN General Assembly in September 2005, the Greek Cypriot President Tassos Papadopoulos pointed out that the Greek Cypriots had rejected the proposed plan because it "did not and could not guarantee the reunification of the country, its society, its economy and its institutions". Furthermore, he said, very little time had been given for detailed study of the plan, which also provided for the creation of a bicommunal and bizonal state on the island, rather than a single Republic of Cyprus. But the main point was that the plan gave Turkish troops the right to use all Cyprus' harbours, to move about the whole island and for Turkish air force planes to fly over Cypriot territory. These were the 'arguments' put forward by the Greek community to justify their position.

The Turkish side, meanwhile, wanted to know why Nicosia was categorically opposed to Cypriot harbours being opened up to Turkish ships whilst, at the same time, the EU was demanding that sea and air ports be opened to Greek Cypriot vessels. Recip Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish Prime Minister, said that the EU, for its part, should lift the blockade of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. In other words, Ankara demanded that the European Union stop playing a one-sided game.

In Nicosia Merkel was also angry that this dispute was hindering the EU's relations with NATO: "The conflict between an EU member, Cyprus, and a NATO member, Turkey, is impeding relations between the European Union and the North Atlantic alliance." She said that it was unacceptable that Turkey was "occupying" the territory of a country which is a member of the EU and the UN.

However, the history of the division of Cyprus into two parts shows that Turkey has never even considered "occupation". Turkish troops entered the island exclusively to protect the Turkish Cypriots in accordance with the 1960 Treaty.

Ankara believes that if Germany is so worried by the presence of a Turkish military contingent in Northern Cyprus it had better focus attention on the Greek Cypriots who voted down a referendum in 2004. Abdullah Gul, the Turkish President, spoke about this in a frank interview for the Euronews TV channel in March 2009: "If this plan had been adopted during the 2004 referendum, and if the Greek Cypriots had adopted the peace plan, the Turkish troops who are today deployed on the island would have been withdrawn. Everyone knows this, including the European Union. We are not opposed to a solution to the Cypriot question."

Merkels' statements in Nicosia reveal clearly her notorious double standards. Otherwise, Berlin would have shown the same keen concern about the occupation of 20 per cent of the territory of a member of the UN and the Council of Europe - Azerbaijan - by a member of those same organizations - Armenia. This is at a time when both Azerbaijan and Armenia are involved in the Eastern Partnership project, whose aim is to speed up their integration into the European community. 

On the other hand, Berlin is all in favour of opening up the Armenian-Turkish border without preconditions, yet another demand in the process towards Turkey's entry to the European Union. But this does not take into account Yerevan's aggressive foreign policy and its territorial claims on all neighbouring countries.

As one would expect, Ankara was once again ready to give as good as it got and has made a number of scathing but completely justified rejoinders to its 'accusers'. Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan, describing the German chancellor's criticism as unjustified, demanded an apology. "We shall not leave Cyprus, and you cannot make us do so. Merkel's remarks do not comply with history…She should apologize" the Turkish prime minister said, reminding Merkel that she herself had said that the decision to accept Greek Cyprus into the EU was incorrect. Furthermore, in an open letter to the EU published in the American Newsweek magazine, Erdogan described the organization as "comatose", "stagnant" and "geriatric". He focused on the fact that Turkey was no longer a docile supplicant waiting at the door of the EU, and in the situation of a new world order, in which the balance of forces had altered, the European Union needed Turkey in order to form a stronger, richer and broader alliance. He advised the Europeans to recognize these realities before it was too late. As regards accepting economically small and weak countries into the EU while rejecting a big and strong Turkey under various pretexts, Erdogan made the pointed remark: "Sometimes I think that perhaps Turkey's power is actually an obstacle in its path to the European Union." Abdullah Gul, the Turkish president, replying to a question by MPs at PACE as to why Turkey does not recognize the "Armenian genocide", said: "Genocide has never been a part of Turkish history. We proposed to Armenia that a joint commission be set up to investigate the events of history. We are prepared to open up our military and civilian archives. Distressing things happened in the First World War. The Ottoman Empire was forced to deport some of its own citizens because they rose up against the government. Genocide means the premeditated murder of people for their religious or racial affiliation. At that time Armenians occupied leading posts in the Ottoman Empire. All Armenian churches were open. It is unacceptable to describe these poignant events as genocide. If we are going to delve into history, no-one in Europe would be able to look another in the eye."

It is worth mentioning that the more Ankara is impeded in its efforts to join the EU, the more the idea of entry loses support among Turkish citizens. Ahmet Davutoglu, the Turkish Foreign Minister, made this clear at the third annual conference of ambassadors in Ankara. But at the same time he said that Turkey would continue its efforts towards European integration. "We will not stop half-way and we will continue our work to integrate into the European Union."

Events show that the leading members of the EU are trying to turn the organization into an exclusively Christian alliance. And, by all accounts, Berlin is playing no minor role in this, although it is considered to be one of Ankara's traditional allies. Many experts believe that domestic political processes are behind German Chancellor Angela Merkel's tough line towards Turkey. In their view, after Merkel's victory in the last elections in Germany, and the consolidation of centre-right forces (of which Guido Westerwelle, the Foreign Minister, is a representative) in the country after the Bundestag elections, the chancellor was forced to strengthen her position on Turkey's entry into the EU in order to create a new coalition. But this was scarcely the only reason. The CDU (Christian Democratic Union) party itself, led by Merkel, believes that the Muslim and European cultural worlds are incompatible. And the CDU/CSU (Christian Socialist Union) bloc sees in the acceptance of new members a threat to the EU's effectiveness. It is these factors that explain statements by Merkel that multiculturalism in Germany has failed and by Tilo Saratsin, the well-known German politician, that migrants (by which he means mainly Turks and Arabs) are making Germany "more foolish".

But this, too, is not the most important factor. In the first half of the last century, most German geopoliticians (Friedrich Ratzel, Friedrich Naumann, Karl Haushofer and others) put forward the concept of a Central (Middle) Europe which provided for a kind of confederation to, first and foremost, deal with economic and defence issues. Germany would be assigned the dominant positions in this central European community. Today, Germany is practically two steps away from this Holy Grail. That is why the admission to the EU of a country like Turkey, which has powerful human and economic resources, could upset Berlin's apple-cart. It is a known fact that the idea of hegemony does not allow for partnership. And there is no place for Turkey in Germany's geopolitical plans. That is why Merkel made this categorical statement during her visit to Turkey last March: "The European Union has changed. The rules of the game have changed, too. Germany continues to insist on the status of privileged partner for Turkey in the EU."

Proceeding from the above, it is difficult not to agree with Prime Minister Erdogan's conclusion that Turkey's power is the main obstacle in its path to the EU. The preconditions presented to Ankara for acceptance into the EU are more akin to obstacles preventing Turkey from entering the organization.