Seyfi Taşhan: This is the second part of our discussion on the events of April 2006. In our last session we discussed mainly the events of the Middle East. Today I propose that we discuss the larger issues European Union, Turkish –U.S. Relations and also Cyprus, if you allow me. Today in addition to Ambassador Reşat Arım and Ambassador Oktay Aksoy, we have the pleasure of having Professor Yüksel İnan with us, who is at the Bilkent University. I believe we should start discussing the European Union. Last April we have seen nothing but criticism from European Union countries. Turkey was accused for not taking radical actions in the field of human rights and Turkey became rather lazy in the implementations of new reforms. I would like to ask you if you concur with this view. First Ambassador Arım.

Reşat Arım: Certainly I would not accept it. Because since last October the process of negotiations with the European Union has started. This process started with the scrutiny and there are many chapters on which the process of scrutiny is continuing, therefore the whole situation is rather at a technical level, if I may say so. Of course there are some later problems in the political field such as Cyprus but Turkey is not concentrating on the political things, rather trying to achieve what can be achieved in the technical field of scrutiny. Many chapters have been already been dealt with. There are many big delegations going to Brussels, dealing with these matters. Therefore, I do not think that one can be so pessimistic. On the reform process, Turkey has passed many laws and also in the field of implementation there has been a big progress which was accepted by the European Union last October. Therefore, the government is again going to propose it seems some more packages in the political reform to the Parliament. I don’t think there is any slowing down. But things are pursuing their normal course.

Seyfi Taşhan: Do you want to add anything, Professor?

Yüksel İnan:  I would like to add certain things. Just in one question there are several questions. So we have to focus on each question with such an insight. First of all since we talked about human rights issues, what I have to comment on that. I think we have done a great deal till May 2004 because we even amended about 57 paragraphs of the Constitution, probably more than 57 and we are just trying to  interpret them as they ought to be. But we could still have a great deal of problems. I think this is due to the philosophy we had carried out till now.  So in order to interpret and implement all those legal norms, Turkey, if I may say so, I must confess, needs time because all those things can not happen so rapidly. In addition to what I would like to say, as we are still in doubt, what I mean by still in doubt is this: We are expecting goodwill from the other countries. But the same goodwill is not displayed to us. So within the Turkish public opinion there is a feeling that the EU is intervening in to the domestic affairs of   Turkey. Whether this is true or not, this has to be taken seriously into account by the EU countries, too. Turkey is a state and basically the Turkish population has a feeling being an absolute sovereign state but things have changed a great deal and the Turkish population, Turkish community also has to realize that not only the world is integrating but the human rights issues are becoming global issues and they do have a particular importance when all over Europe not only within their countries but all over the Council of Europe which covers 46 states, if you have to exclude Ukraine. So, if   the EU would display goodwill and try to understand Turkey in its progress related with the recovery of its previous bad record in the field of human rights, I think most of the people will be courageous to do so. Moreover, what I would like to stress upon is this, Turkish public is unfortunately being biasedly informed or better to say disinformed about too many things, not only in the field of human rights but also within EU and how it functions, what are the powers, how would the EU intervene   to the state systems and try to integrate all legal norms, political decision making processes and so on. At this stage we also do need sometime in order to take additional progresses in order to make additional reforms in the field of human rights. To add a few more ideas: most people do have doubts about why foreigners do pay visits first of all to southern part of Anatolia. Well, this has to be explained to the Turkish public courageously. Because Turkey has certain commitments that come from the 1923 Lausanne Peace Treaty. And despite all those, we try simply to ignore those and as long as we do continue to ignore those., as long as we try to display a policy having nationalistic feelings prevailing over the other ones, I think this will take a lot of time for the Turkish people to understand how Turkey and EU tries to cover the bridge between those.

Seyfi Taşhan:  Yes, on that last point may I make a remark. The US, Germany, France seem to be adopting a Turkish version of integration rather than their multiculturalism which has been propagated for decades by European countries and also by the US for that matter, which is considered by Europe as part of the democratic system and also as part of the human rights system. However, there is a problem now that is arising with the communities whose languages are not French or German or European languages. So we see a great debate in Germany now. Whether all the foreigners should learn German or in France whether they should become a real French citizens, I mean, to be assimilated in other way. So it is true that in Lausanne we had a commitment to allow anyone to speak any language they want, but is it not essential that everyone should learn the official language of this country that is Turkish, in addition to the languages that they prefer to learn? But it is in the US; Mr. Bush recently came up and said: all immigrants should learn English. And it is in Germany, there was a proposal that people should sing the German national anthem in Turkish. And there was a huge reaction to it. So, I believe this is part of interpretation of the word integration. The world integration, I am afraid, is being tempted to be interpreted more and more as assimilation rather than multiculturalism. I think probably that is the victim of 9/11 and also the increasing tension between the Muslim and Christian communities in Europe. I think this may prove to be a major difficulty, also in Turkey’s participation to the EU. Ambassador Aksoy, would like to comment on the same issue?

Oktay Aksoy:  Yes, I agree in general with what has been said by the previous speakers. It is true that the Parliament last year, the year before worked till the mornings to pass a lot of laws, a lot of changes to our legislation and even changes to the articles of the Constitution. But that was to fulfill the requirements to start the accession negotiations. With the accession negotiations starting, I think there is a normal slowing down of this parliamentary activity but it does not mean there is reluctance to the reforms. It will be fulfilled in a short while. But the messages coming from the EU side is not always very promising, very encouraging. As you said they are putting some tests into force for the migrant communities in Europe, particularly in Germany, in Holland and it is not only a matter of learning the official language, but a lot of other things beyond this which make it difficult for these communities to integrate with the local populations.

Seyfi Taşhan: Well, I think we covered this subject. But let me just add as a footnote that  there has been a recent adoption of Social Security  reform in this country, which brings Turkish social life at least slightly closer to the European norms. Criminal Code has been reformed even though there are certain points, certain problems in implementation. And we see less and less new cases that are brought before the Human Rights Court in Strasbourg about violations. They are dealing still mainly with the old situations that arose with the PKK terrorism conflict. I think, we can say overall, Turkey is still on the right tract.

Yüksel İnan: We are optimistic and we ought to be optimistic as you say because the figure of the applications to the Human Rights Court in Strasbourg is getting less and less every year and right now it is dealing with the ones which were submitted previously. Those are positive signs. No doubt about it. But turning to the point which certain comments were made,  whether within Turkey there is an integration or not, but when we  look at the records and the  minutes of the Lausanne Peace Conference, we do realize that the right to recognize those people to use their languages, to publish in their own language either in public or in private, all those aim to preserve their identities and improve their identities within that and for that reason to learn the Turkish language, not only being a highly patriotic person, but it is an essential requirement for each state. That’s why within Europe for people that want to be immigrant in those countries, they are required to integrate in those societies, with the condition that they still do preserve their ideas and also their cultures within their own means of understanding.

Seyfi Taşhan: Well of course the question of culture requires a whole debate, what its components are and what makes one separate culturally from the other person living in the same community,  sharing the same occurrences at random, may be sharing the same food all the time and watching  the same movies, reading the same books. That is a bit what you may call worthy of further discussion. But just to sum up  this subject, we can say that something is being done in Turkey, Turkey has not let it go after the beginning of the negotiations and may be, as it has been pointed out, may be it is at a slower pace. It is not as hectic as between 1999- 2004 but it will be moving. Now let’s turn to a thorny question, if you allow me. We have been having some discussions among ourselves on the question of Cyprus. It has become a thorny question because Greek Cypriot regime is threatening Turkey with what you may call vetoing any progress in the negotiations or eventually vetoing the entry of Turkey into the EU as a full member. These threats are there. And also they do not seem to be anxious to reach a solution that could bring peace and unity in the Island. Against that, we see a certain kind of pressure from EU, that Turkey, even though they do not say it explicitly, recognize the Greek administration in the Island as the legitimate government of entire Cyprus and that we should also treat them as a full, unfledged member of the EU, and also open our ports and air fields to Greek Cypriot shipping and aircraft. And also accord them the Customs Union. I think this subject requires a little bit of a debate because we seem to be within a dialogue of the deaf, to a certain extent because what EU is telling us, we interpret this in a legal way and that we, as pointed out earlier, we have a great sensitivity and national pride, we hate to be imposed upon by fiat, conditions that is not acceptable to the people of Turkey or are against Turkish interests. So can we deal a little bit more this question of Cyprus? Ambassador Arım, you are an expert on Cyprus, you have worked for so many years on this subject.

Reşat Arım: Of course the EU has made a mistake by allowing the entry of the Greek Cypriots into the EU. Than it has also caused some kind of a dead lock. And EU authorities are aware of it. And they have experienced the worst, because in 2004 they said that if the referendum would go positively and the Annan plan was accepted, than there would be a new system for the Turkish Cypriots, they would benefit from EU’s trade relations and all that. They promised this openly but than they could not fulfill this promise. And they understood that there was a mistake on their part. So probably in the future they would act with the knowledge of this big mistake. Of course Greek Cypriots are now a member and they would influence the decisions of the EU and the work of the European Commission. And the Commission is saying, rather the Commissioner for Enlargement Olli Rehn has said that since Turkey has given the opportunity to the 10 new members to be. Turkey has extended the benefits of the Ankara Agreement to the 10 new members. Than this is interpreted by the European Commissioner Olli Rehn, of course that the Greek Cypriots will benefit from the Customs Union and also they would benefit from entry into the Turkish ports and airports. This is what the European Commissioner has said. But of course there is a problem. Mr. Taşhan has his theory about it and his idea which is very reasonable, of course. I feel   you will explain it now. But I personally think that on the whole this membership of the Greek Cypriots into the EU has divided the EU. Some of the countries they are supporting the Greek Cypriot case. If I can mention them as France, Austria and some others. And there are others like the UK, etc., a country which is also a guarantor power of the Cyprus Treaties as one of the signatories of the Treaty of Guarantee. This alone shows that the EU will come to understand that until Turkey becomes a full member of the EU it will be difficult to solve the Cyprus problem and fortunately in the referendum the Turkish side voted for the referendum for the Annan Plan and the Greek Cypriots refused it and they are still adamant to find a solution to the problem, so it looks that this is an advantage for the time being.

Seyfi Taşhan:  Prof. İnan, I have been thinking on this subject, spent some time on it. EU acquis is applicable only in Southern Cyprus that is the Greek part. And as EU is implementing EU acquis only in one part of the Island, how can the EU tell us to recognize this regime as the government of the entire Island simply because it has been recognized so in the Security Council by accident in 1964 and also it is telling us to open our ports and airports? Now, I believe the Custom Union refers only to the entry of goods without customs and certain competition principles and a whole list of conditions that such entry would be subjected to. But according to EU standards and all international treaties the question of air transport or maritime transport is a kind of service and with the EU we have no service agreement. How come EU, on what legal basis EU can demand from us the opening of our ports and airports to a country with whom we do not have any legal arrangement, we do not even  recognize that government to open ports to there services? Do you see any reason in this?

Yüksel İnan:  Well, first of all what I would like to say is this:  there is a decision of the European Court that relates to this. It is  trying to combine that, export of goods or export of commodities are considered within the freedom of trade, also that includes services, which is transporting those commodities, those goods into that country. But what I do realize is this: a sort of a game of chess. As you have stated the Ankara Agreement solved the concerns of freedom without any customs in trade related to goods and commodities. It does not make a reference at all to services. In addition, what I would like to emphasize is this, the Custom Union established between Turkey and the EU which has been declared publicly by the decision of 1995 does not make a reference at all to the freedom of services. So Turkey has no commitment at all to bind herself with the freedom of services since it has been expressly excluded from that decision. So what the EU can argue is this: the judgment of the EU Court is part of EU acquis. So you have to comply with those. Is this argument from the point of law valid? Well, as being a jurist, what I can say at the first instance is ‘’no’’. Because our own commitments concerns only, according to treaties which the parties have their signatures can only bind, inter se, the related issues among the parties. So, to urge Turkey to comply the with freedom of services would be in a manner to say so in legal terms, is a, I am just trying to remember the Latin term for it, it would be in a manner to exceed the powers, ‘’ultra vires’’ to say the proper term. An ultra vires interpretation is being displayed by EU. Why the EU is trying to do so? I think the EU is even among itself in a biased position. Some are probably in favor of imposing this; some are trying to find ways of how to remove this obstacle before Turkey. They are in such a position. So how can we solve that problem? I think we have to play our own cards. How we can do it? Right now we are pronouncing that we will be lifting all the obstacles before services if the EU were to relax the trade obstacles before the TRNC. So, can Turkey put forward, in addition to this political argument, legal argument? I think this requires courage and the government ought to be courageous for this. We might also say that we will recognize the Greek Cypriot Administration but on condition. When we say on condition, it will be a de facto recognition where Turkey will have a political leverage to withdraw it at any time. So what will be the content of such a recognition? It will be confined to negotiations between Turkey and EU. So, I think this will open at least a way and would draw much more attention and most of the EU states, from my point of view, will support it. This time they put the pressure to the other side.

Seyfi Taşhan:  Well, that is a very interesting argument. I do not know, of course we should also consider the public opinion in this country. Ambassador Aksoy you have any remarks on this subject?

Oktay Aksoy:  Not in addition to what has been said because of course the Cyprus issue has become a stumbling block in our negotiations because at first the enthusiasm of the Turkish government to make concessions to solve the Cyprus problem has been watered down with the decision to start these negotiations in an open ended way. So any government would hesitate to take any further steps to improve the situation because it would be considered as a big concession before Turkey is sure to become a full member.

Seyfi Taşhan: Of course, a point over there is that there are two types of actions we have to take as vis-à-vis the EU. Actually, we are expected to take it. One is the bringing down or adjusting our societies to accepting the European acquis in the fields of social, political, educational, environmental, economic systems of the country. That is number one. I think we should be as fast as possible to implement these measures to reach the European acquis soon as possible but as regards the political positions taken by some European countries in order to accommodate their wishes or their interests, we have to be very careful on what the outcome of our negotiations with the EU will be. In other words, the EU is asking us to pay some money for a good that they have refused categorically to ensure that they will give against our money. So, this is not a good trade. That will not be acceptable. We have two more subjects. But I believe that we have spoken enough for this session. And I think we can close and on our next meeting, that will be third installment, we will discuss Russia and the US.