|  
  |  
  |  
  |  
RSS
  |  
  |  
February 12, 2012
 
 
 
 
 
 
Columnists 08 December 2006, Friday 0 0 0 0
ABDÜLHAMİT BİLİCİ
a.bilici@todayszaman.com

Is Merkel Responding to Sezer's Scolding?

Merkel and Chirac met alone yesterday on the time-limitation recommendation to Turkey who has not opened its ports to Greeks Cyprus. The two influential EU leaders find the commission’s freezing eight chapters in the negotiations to be too mild. They want Turkey to be given 18 months years to fulfill its responsibilities.

In her statement, Merkel emphasizes that Turkey has to accept the consequences of not implementing the protocol. The EU Commission did not lose time in reacting to this unfair recommendation even before Turkey did. It stated that, due to the dispute over Cyprus, pressure applied did not give results and that it was necessary to display a balanced approach appropriate to Turkey’s strategic importance.

Well, why is Merkel finding it difficult to comprehend this strategic importance the EU Commission reminded her? In spite of former EU Enlargement Commissioner Verheugen’s saying they Greek Cyprus deceived them or the admission by dozens of European leaders that they made a mistake by taking them before resolving the Cyprus issue, from where does this love for Cyprus come? While Greek Cypriots were rewarded with EU membership for rejecting the U.N. plan and not keeping the word they gave at Burgenstock, why does not opening one or two ports to the Greeks require punishment? Has the European Union foregone oppressing the Turkish Cypriots, who are struggling for a solution, by means of an embargo and kept its word to remove the isolations that it becomes this great a fault for Turkey not to keep its word regarding the ports?

Or is Merkel planning to meet the need for harmony among civilizations that the world is persistently seeking by means of the Greeks? Or is she thinking that energy resources that will save Europe from dependence on Russia’s natural gas will be sent via the Greek industry?

Actually, when looking at it objectively, I have difficulty understanding the logic in the European Union’s raising problems for Turkey. At this moment the issue is not full membership, but continuation of accession talks. No one is expecting membership before 2014. In that case, without paying a penny, of what benefit is it to Merkel to try and chop up the period of time helpful to Turkey’s reform process and democratization? While it is possible to encourage what some call the project of the 21st century and, thus, increase the prestige of both the European Union and themselves, why are they doing the opposite?

In addition, if what is feared is Turkey’s membership, even if accession talks are completed successfully, cannot both governments and the people still prevent membership? Did France not change its constitution just for this reason and make the condition that new members have to be approved by a referendum? If, in fact, the issue is Cyprus, are we stupid enough not to see that Turkey cannot be a member until this is resolved? Does Turkey not always take the lead in solutions because we know this?

When one fails to find an objective explanation for the meaningless crisis we are experiencing with the European Union recently, he looks for subjective reasons whether he wants to or not. For example, the scolding that Merkel received from Sezer on Oct. 5at the Cankaya Kiosk comes to mind.

I am talking about the meeting shown on TV when Turkish EU Negotiator Minister Ali Babacan was rebuked by Turkish President Ahmet Sezer. I listened to this meeting behind the curtain with two other reporters, but I did not write about it because it was prohibited. After those “special” colleagues, who know well whom I mean, put the subject in headlines, there remained no secret aspect to the “constitutional throwing” event, of which this event can be considered the international version.

In that meeting, Merkel, who watched with horror the rebuke of Babacan and the position he fell to, was stunned by Sezer’s heavy criticism and was only able to say she was from Eastern Germany and lived under a communist regime. She went on to say there were no democratic battles then but now she was the Chancellor of Germany, learned to fight for democracy, and would not fight with him that night. While leaving, Merkel was going to say to those beside her: “I have never had such an experience in my life. He not only reprimands a minister in the Turkish government, but he also reacts against a German Chancellor who is his guest. I can’t believe it.”

How did the German state and the German Chancellor record this treatment? To what extent did Merkel accredit this attitude to Turkey? Or today, while making Turkey’s EU process difficult, to what degree is she influenced by this event? I do not know. But as I said, when one does not find an objective reason, he looks for subjective reasons like this.

Weather
City>>
ISTANBUL
Today Mon Tue
1C°
8C°
3C°
8C°
2C°
6C°