Straight to the point. This is the heart of the matter. What Miliband says could be easily justified as such: It is true that Turkey has strengthened its ties with the West to such an extent that it is officially represented in a large number of European institutions in a transatlantic context. But one final issue remains to be resolved correctly, and that is the accession process, which will have to end in full membership some time in the future. The remark is a stark reminder to staunch Turco-skeptics inside the union, such as Nicolas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel, who fortunately had to stop the nonsensical assertion that Turkey does not belong to Europe and cease the utterly venomous rhetoric on privileged partnership. If a country fulfills the requirements of institutions with a clear European identity and is accepted as part of them, it is European. Being part has to do with values. Period.
It is obvious that Miliband’s visit has the aim to reassert British resolve in boosting Turkey’s EU accession process, also given that the thorny and weary issue of Cyprus has the highest priority of all in the timeframe. When Sweden succeeds in opening yet another chapter (on environment), we will have been left with no more because of Cyprus, and French resistance. This will mean a practical “end” to the negotiation process. One can only imagine how discouraging that situation will be for Turkish opinion.
The talks on the island once more send out the signals of failure, at best a fruitless delay detrimental not only for Turkey but also in an international context. Despite cautious optimism voiced by the Turkish Cypriot side, a recent interview with Dimitris Christofias, the president of Greek Cyprus, must be taken as an element of concern.
He stated the following: “I do not agree that April is a deadline. I hope and I wish and I will try my utmost to solve the problem before December. … Even if we move forward as we are moving now, having in mind [the] differences which we must bridge, of course, but following some principles at the same time, it will be difficult to find a solution even before April.”
The question remains: Does Christofias -- or his side -- have anything to lose from a deliberate delay? No.
Does the EU have anything to lose from a deliberate delay? If we consider sincere and visionary actors within it, probably yes.
But Christofias also said something important: “We talk with Mr. [Mehmet Ali] Talat about the structure of the future state of Cyprus and the participation of two communities. But the withdrawal of troops and settlers and other aspects of problems do not depend on us. They depend on guarantors and foreign powers.”
Mind the last sentence. The urgent timeframe demands collective action and extra energy. The delicate momentum which Miliband and Carl Bildt and many others are surely aware of should not be allowed to be lost.
Consider all these elements together:
Two leaders of the same ideological background -- two comrades -- against all odds talk deeply and many times tête-à-tête. Both in Turkey and Greece there are single majority governments. The one in Greece needs to “score” success in foreign policy because its economy is a mess. The one in Turkey means serious business with zero problems in foreign policy, and its prime minister on Oct. 30 sent a private letter to his colleague in Athens, offering deep cooperation (possibly including Cyprus). Furthermore, the government in Ankara has an apparent advantage over the military, which is under severe pressure due to revelations about “clandestine, undemocratic activity within” -- an internal momentum, pro-solution in Cyprus. Finally, the foreign secretary of the third guarantor power, the UK, is both ideologically close to the one in Athens and shares the same pragmatic and modern vision of an EU with “zero problems” with Turkey, with negotiations as a powerful leverage. Let me reassert again: If the “talks” are only left to the leaders on the island, one can forget a final, sustainable solution. It is time for the EU, therefore, to strain itself to think creatively, while Ankara, Athens and London engage actively to “push” for a solution, as Christofias suggests. The three capitals mentioned, in particular, have a golden opportunity.
