At the meeting Ingmar Karlsson, who after seven years in İstanbul as Sweden's consul general and having written excellent books about the country, is surely one of the most knowledgeable foreign diplomats about Turkey, spoke on the current state of Turkey-EU relations and I briefed the group on recent developments in Turkish politics.
My starting point was that despite its relatively long history with the rule of law, constitutional government and parliamentary democracy, Turkey still cannot be considered to have consolidated any of these. As manifestations of this state of affairs, I cited the continued political role of the military, which is committed to an authoritarian reading of Kemalism, the judiciary's interventions in the political process, increasingly assuming the character of a juristocracy, revelations about averted coup attempts in 2003-2004 and the current investigation and trial against the clandestine Ergenekon organization, which is accused of creating chaos in the country to pave the way for the overthrow of the democratically elected government by the military. I did not fail, however, to also point out the economic and political dynamics since the 1980s that have moved Turkey closer than ever to democratic consolidation, emphasizing the significance in this context of the accession process to the EU that started at the end of the 1990s. I expressed the hopes of Turkish Europhiles like myself that this process would not somehow be suspended or discontinued.
As is well known, 2009 is a critical year for Turkey-EU relations. If Ankara fails to continue with reforms toward fulfilling membership criteria and talks toward the reunification of Cyprus do not move in the right direction, there is a risk that the EU may decide to suspend the accession negotiations, which started in 2005, at the end of this year. That Sweden, the most decided supporter of Turkish accession, will assume the term presidency in the second half of this year should not lead Ankara to relax its pursuit of the reform agenda. This is what Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt said on Turkey last Wednesday in the annual government statement on foreign policy:
"The EU's credibility as an international actor presupposes respect for the undertakings made in the area of enlargement. This is why the focus will be on enlargement issues during the Swedish Presidency. In this context, the government especially aims to underline the strategic importance of Turkey becoming a member of the EU. Closing the door to EU membership for Turkey would be a mistake of historic proportions. We all have reason to intensify our efforts to explain the significance of this step. Sweden and the EU support the negotiation process on the future of Cyprus. The reunification of Cyprus would mean increased security, freedom and welfare gains for the entire population of the island and for the region as a whole. Moreover, a reunification would have a decisive influence both on Turkey's closer relations with the EU and the prospects for improving the coordination of NATO and EU peace and stability efforts."
On one of the evenings in Stockholm I also had the opportunity to address a large group of Turkish immigrants in a meeting organized by the Zaman daily's local bureau. As may be expected, in both meetings I was asked questions regarding the Ergenekon case. I explained that there are mainly two approaches to the case that polarize the country. A clear majority, according to polls, believes that the Ergenekon investigation and trial are a historic opportunity to once and for all close the chapter on military interventions and the "deep state," that is, the "state within the state" composed of elements within the intelligence services, military, security, judiciary and mafia, suspected of being responsible for a large number of assassinations since the 1990s. Others, represented mainly by the main opposition party and the largest media group, however, see the case as a fabrication by the government party intended to silence all opposition. I added, of course, that I strongly subscribe to the first of these approaches, while insisting that the investigation and the trial is carried out in full observance of the requirements of the rule of law.
To questions about the likely outcome of the Ergenekon trial, I responded by pointing to the fact that the recent release of retired high-ranking commanders under arrest has led to mounting speculation that they are being protected by the military and that there may be a bargain made between the government and the military to limit the scope of the investigation and to punish only minor figures involved, as in the Susurluk case back in the 1990s. I concluded, therefore, by saying that the final outcome of the case remains to be seen.
