October 25, 2010
First of all, several governments of the European Union want absolutely to organize a referendum about Turkey’s EU membership. But it is revealing that they didn’t want to organize a referendum about the Lisbon treaty (Ireland only organized one). That is crystal clear: they were afraid that their citizens might vote against that treaty, that is why they were against a referendum. Is that democracy? However, these governments state that a referendum must be held about Turkey’s EU membership, and they justify it “in the name of democracy”. Well, what I understand is that these governments manipulate democracy for their interest, since they decided that their citizens weren’t competent to make the right or the sensible decision about the Lisbon treaty. Why? Because they knew that their citizens could have voted “No”. But these governments decided that their citizens are competent regarding Turkey’s EU membership. “Yes, I think to myself “What a wonderful world”. Oh yeah”.
The media are so used to introducing only the negative side of Turkey to the citizens of the EU that these ones have become their prisoners and have a lot of prejudices. These citizens, who don’t know Turkey, are then against Turkey’s EU membership, whereas Turkey is a candidate country to the EU since 10 years, whereas the EU-Turkey negotiations have already begun. The EU citizens are against Turkey’s EU membership because they are victims of a systematic disinformation regarding Turkey, above all by the media (who does control the media? We must know it to understand why there is such a war on information against Turkey). And there is such an ocean of prejudices towards Turkey that tolerating an objective or positive information is extremely difficult and requires an Herculean task on oneself. Because of the numerous EU media and politicians who make a brainwashing about Turkey. Introducing the positive sides of Turkey is unusual. Something is rotten in the state of the EU.
Let’s remind that Turkey wants to be a member of the EU because it has always been its international political plan: Turkey stated at the time of the European Economic Community that it wants to be part of a political Europe. Let’s underline that the EEC/EU were not created in a cultural perspective but they have always been an economic and political plan. What have in common the Italians with the Belgians? Or what have in common the Greeks with the English? Angela Merkel and the christian democrats of the EU tried to include in the EU constitution: “The root of the EU is Christendom”, but they failed. That was an anti-secular attempt. Anyway, Turkey is very close to the EU in numerous symbolic fields. For instance, Turkey is a member of Eurocontrol (since 1989, whereas several EU countries became members after it). And in spite of the unhealthy anti-Turkish game of some irresponsable politicians, its EU membership is still on the horizon. Olli Rehn said that Turkey’s EU membership is vital. Günter Verheugen said that the EU needs more Turkey than Turkey needs the EU (but Mr Verheugen, why have made the Greek Cypriots members of the EU whereas it was obvious that their EU membership would become an obstacle to Turkey’s EU membership, in the same manner of Greece’s EEC membership? In other words, with Greece, the EU created an iron curtain – based on religion – between itself and Turkey.
And in 2004, it created a second iron curtain with the Greek Cypriots), nonetheless, there are some politicians and very influential lobbies full of hatred in the EU who try to sabotage that membership. In fact, some pathetic politicians, unworthy of governing, blinded by hatred and corruption, jeopardize the official fusion between the EU and Turkey. Turkey, as Spain said it last june, is victim of discriminations from the EU. Let’s remind that 19 chapters of the Turkey-EU negotiations are blocked. Despite these disgraceful double standards, Turkey still wants to be an EU member. But if the politicians of the EU who support that membership don’t react concretely against that humiliation, the Turkish citizens may vote “No” to Turkey’s EU membership. Because of the anti-Turkish hatred, which is of such magnitude that it represents a business. That hatred is intolerable, above all in an EU that claims to be civilized and modern.
In 1949, Turkey became a founding member of the Council of Europe. In 1952, it became a key member of NATO. In 1963, the EEC and Turkey signed the Ankara Agreement that foresees the membership of Turkey to the EEC/EU. In 1995, the EU and Turkey signed the Customs Union (Mr Alain Juppé worked on that dossier) that came into force in 1996. Important step before the membership. In 1999 at Helsinki, the whole EU signed and officially recognized Turkey a candidate to the union, and it emphasized that Turkey would be treated as every previous country, and that the objective is the full membership to the EU. In 2004, all the states of the EU signed so that the negotiations start in 2005. And without the key roles of Jacques Chirac and Gerard Schröder, who signed in the name of France and Germany, the opening of the negotiations wouldn’t have been approved. Also in 2004, the EU parliament, direct representative of the EU citizens, supported by an overwhelming margin the opening of the EU-Turkey negotiations (407 votes in favour, 262 against). The European democracy has then pronounced itself at another level. If the EU signed in 1963, 1999 and 2004, it’s because it considers Turkey as a european country. The decisions were already made, we can’t call into question democracy. The EU is a democracy, isn’t it?
Thus, Turkey’s EU membership is legitimate (besides, thanks to its international policy, Turkey is worthy for being a member of the EU: on the one hand, let’s remember that the UK of Tony Blair supported the United States of America in order to invade Iraq in 2003. But Turkey didn’t authorize the United States of America to take advantage of its territory to illegally attack Iraq by the north, whereas the English, members of the EU, detached themselves from the EU, and were harmful to the whole union. They acted against the principles of the EU. But Turkey acted as a true member of the EU should act, unlike to some EU members. On the other hand, today, Turkey proves again that it is loyal to the EU spirit: Mr Ahmet Davutoğlu’s “Zero problem with the neighbours” policy is promising. It aims at maintaining stability and propagating the peace. Ahmet Davutoğlu is successful with every country because he is sincere. In a way, he implements Atatürk’s “Peace at home, peace in the world”. The EU commission stated that Turkey’s foreign policy is in line with its EU membership and that it supports it. Thus, owing to its international involvement, Turkey deserves to be an EU member).
But then why call into question Turkey’s EU membership? Why does not the EU respect its signatures? How can Turkey trust the EU?
How can the EU be credible in the world? Is it governed only by Mr Sarkozy and Ms Merkel? (Because of their ideology based on religion, these two so-called leaders create more threats in the world. These two so-called leaders don’t want Turkey to be an EU member but they prefer sending our soldiers to death in Afghanistan). Is there not 27 members in the EU?
Why do the big EU countries that support Turkey’s EU membership do nothing? I have doubts about the true intentions of the EU, because it contents itself with looking on the sabotage of its negotiations with Turkey.
We must not fool anyone, Turkey is not responsible for the problems of the EU. We ask here and there a referendum about its EU membership. If a referendum was held today, we’d know in advance the results, due to the prejudices implanted in the mentality of the EU citizens. We can’t expect a positive result as long as the EU media and numerous politicians make everything so that the EU citizens are against that membership. On the one hand, the media make a propaganda against Turkey, on the other hand, a referendum is demanded. That is unhealthy.
Besides, if we had organized a referendum – after World War II – in France to know if the French wanted to unite with the Germans in order to create the EEC/EU, would the French citizens have voted “Yes”? Would the EEC/EU have existed? After World War II, if we had organized a referendum in the Netherlands and that the question was: “Do you agree to unite with Germany to create the EEC?”, well most of the citizens would have voted “No”. Thus, we should stop repeating that most of the EU citizens are against Turkey’s EU membership, because if the opinion of the French or Dutch citizens was asked through a referendum, the EEC/EU would have never existed.
Instead of making believe that Turkey is the source of the problems of the EU (a reminder: since 1981, Greece received nearly 100 billion euros of EU funds. And today Greece is in a crisis and ask money again. But at the same time, it shamefully and outrageously supports the Greek Cypriots, who voted against the Annan peace plan in 2004), instead of entertaining the French and the EU citizens regarding the EU membership of Turkey (which will be possible only towards 2016-2020 – so Mr Sarkozy will not be concerned since he will not be here anymore), Mr Sarkozy, the UMP, the CDU-CSU and the other anti-Turkey politicians should rather deal with our true problems such as pension, unemployment or the environment.
But given that they fail to suggest solutions to these issues, they prefer creating a diversion with Turkey’s EU membership and playing for laughs. And many media and their other supporters choose to close their eyes and prefer pointing their finger at Turkey. These famous anti-Turkey politicians and their faithfull supporters prefer attacking Turkey from dawn to dusk with their despicable acts, because that is easier than resolving unemployment, easier than taking their responsability (but let’s remember that it is Greece which doctored its statistics to fool the EU. A Turkish economist said: “The economy of Greece is able to stand only thanks to financial aid. That’s why a new crisis will occur in Greece”. Whereas the economy of Turkey is so interlinked to the economy of the EU that when Turkey is a member, it will be able to integrate the euro zone immediately).
Turkey’s EU membership requires an Herculean task. Although the whole EU stated in 1999 at Helsinki that Turkey would become a full EU member and that it would be treated as every previous EU candidate, today we can note that it is far from being the case.
(Finland is the most sincere country of the EU that supports Turkey’s EU membership, the state as well as the citizens.
Therefore, if I had the power to decide, I would choose Helsinki as the first EU town to be connected to Istanbul through a high speed train.
(But the EU doesn’t want to be by the side of Finland but by the side of the greek Cypriots in order to block Turkey’s EU membership. Elmar Brok, a close colleague to Angela Merkel, said several months ago: “We will do whatever the Greek Cypriots ask us”).
Finland has always truly supported Turkey’s EU membership. Finland is a true ally of Turkey. Kiitos Suomi.
Furthermore, the Finnish and Turkish languages ressemble each other. And the fact that the Finns are involved in Turkcell is also positive. We can also compare Turkey with Finland by reason of their fight for independence. Lastly, they are both very young nations).
Thus, the EU does not fulfil its commitments of 1999 towards Turkey. Turkey is in fact victim of double standards from the EU: on the one hand, in 2004, before the decision to open the EU-Turkey negotiations was taken, it was underlined that it will take longer (compared with the previous candidates) to close a chapter with Turkey. On the other hand, as if it was not enough, many chapters are subjectively blocked. The EU blocks 8 chapters because of the Cypriot issue (but why 8?). But as that is not enough neither, Mr Sarkozy blocks 5 chapters. That blockage goes against the principles of the EU. But no one in the EU acts about that. And the Greek Cypriots block 6 chapters. So Austria doesn’t need to do the job. Mr Sarkozy and the Greek side act against the EU spirit. They act with impunity, since the EU remains a spectator. Unbelievable. Why does no EU member intervene? Where is the EU spirit? Robert Schuman and Jean Monnet would be ashamed of that deplorable situation.
Let’s add that many politicians and media still call into question the european identity of Turkey, whereas Walter Hallstein said in 1963: “Turkey belongs to Europe”. Thus, Turkey faces well and truly with double standards on all fronts. Last but not least, a referendum will be held in France (and probably in Austria) at the end of the EU-Turkey negotiations. So what Turkey is expected to do to join the EU really requires an Herculean task. And we are so demanding with Turkey that it will probably become one of the closest member of the EU to perfection.
Mr Egemen Bağış said several months ago that Turkey doesn’t expect a new chapter to be opened in order to improve itself or to adapt its laws to the EU laws: in fact Turkey is already working hard in order to improve itself and to adapt its laws to the ones of the EU. Hence, when a chapter is opened, the job of Turkey will have already almost be completed. But the problem is the extra rules (in other words other double standards) imposed by the EU in 2004, which don’t enable a chapter to be closed as fast as with the previous EU candidates.
Despite the scandalous double standards of the EU, Mr Egemen Bağış works intensely and has no time to waste to respond to provocations that aim both at masking these double standards and accusing Turkey to be responsible for the glaciation of the EU-Turkey negotiations. It’s not Mr Bağış who manipulates the Cypriot issue, it’s neither him who blocks 5 crucial chapters. It’s Mr Sarkozy. Those who want to hide that awful truth have no honour. Egemen Bağış perfectly knows what Turkey has to do (he said for instance last january that Turkey has to change its constitution), but the EU prevents him from doing his job. Lastly, Mr Bağış underlined several times that Turkey is improving itself for itself only, not for the EU.
The most important progress in Turkey is the reform of the constitution. Now, Turkey’s objective is to write a brand new constitution. That’s very important. That’s a very meaningful progress, much more important than opening a chapter of the negotiations, as Ms Ria Oomen Ruijten recently underlined it too. But Ms Ruijten, let’s not forget the unhealthy game of the EU about Cyprus. Everybody knows that the EU-Turkey negotiations are blocked because several irresponsible EU governments want them to be blocked.
However that may be, what’s quite positive is that there will be no serious problems regarding the new constitution of Turkey. Turkey’s future’s very bright.
I am deeply frustrated because of the anti-Turkish racism of some French and European politicians and of many media. Turkey is victim of an unbelievable lynching, especially since 2004. I am ashamed and indignant. I feel very insulted. My Turkish identity is affected, but I also suffer as a French citizen.
But I’m above all angry because the EU deserted Turkey in its struggle against the terrorist group the PKK for 30 years. And the EU waited 20 years to recognize the PKK as a terrorist organization. Why? The PKK killed 40 000 people. And that terrorism cost more than 200 billion euros.
I am also outraged because of another treason of the UE towards Turkey: in fact, Turkey, as a NATO member, played a vital role during the Cold War. The EU absolutely needed Turkey, thus Turkey protected it. But there are many traitors among the EU politicians. There are numerous traitors in the media too. They want to forget Turkey’s key role during the Cold War. David Cameron went to Turkey a few months ago, and he emphasized that role. The British prime minister said: “I think that it is a mistake to ask Turkey to mount guard in front of the camp, without being authorized to enter the tent”. But the traitors of the EU didn’t listen to him.
On account of these treasons, sometimes I am uncertain as for Turkey’s EU membership.
Does the EU deserve Atatürk’s Turkey? Does the EU
deserve the country of Sami Selçuk, Yaşar Kemal, Elif Şafak, Ismaïl Cem, Ahmet Davutoğlu, Beşir Atalay, Kemal Derviş, Ilker Başbuğ, Ishak Alaton, Güler Sabancı, Sina Akşin, Sezen Aksu, Orhan Gencebay, Sertab Erener, Barış Manço, Pinhani, Mithat Bereket, Mehmet Ali Birand, …..?
I think the EU does not deserve Turkey. And I am of those who think that in a few years, the EU will beg to Turkey for joining the EU. But the problem at which the EU will have to face up to is the opinion of the Turkish citizens. And believing that the Turks will beg to the EU for being members is quite pretentious, and synonymous with a superiority complex.
First, the population of Turkey is young whereas the population of the EU is ageing. Secondly, the Turkish economy develops quickly and has a huge potential. Thirdly, according to the boss of the TPAO, Turkey possesses oil and gas in the Black sea (40 billion barrels of oil and 4 trillion cubic metre of gas), in the Mediterranean as well as in the east of its territory. Besides, Turkey possesses 90% of the boron world reserves. Boron is the source of energy of the future (for instance, boron will feed the spaceships of the future). Lastly, Turkey is a military superpower (second army of NATO).
Thanks to Atatürk, Turkey is a secular republic where all the Turks, whatever their ethnic group, live in peace. (Turkey is one of the most secular countries of Europe with France. Surprising, isn’t it?).
Thus, Turkey’s future is bright. And it will become a very rich country. Why would it want to become a member of that EU run by traitors towards it? Why Turkey would want to be a source of cash for that EU? Of that EU that still continues to prove its treacherousness by manipulating the Cypriot issue in order to destroy the european path of Turkey?
Turkey has been coveted for a very long time. The PKK and its lawyer the DTP/BDP, with the support of foreign shadowy lobbies, aim at creating chaos and dividing Turkey in order to prevent it from becoming a superpower. An unstable Turkey benefits these lobbies and their countries.
But Turkey is united and will always be. It is economically and politically stable for eight years, and that stability (that disturbs some lobbies and governments) enables it to resolve its national and intenational problems. Turkey tries to resolve all of them quickly. It works a lot and gets remarkable results. But if the EU played at last its role, Turkey would resolve them faster. But the EU has proved that it is far from being credible, and instead of helping Turkey to resolve its problems, it impedes its progress. Hélène Flautre said that the EU is jealous of the role of Turkey in its region.
To conclude, the EU-Turkey relations are long-standing. Turkey is close to Europe since 1949 (the new president of the Council of Europe is a Turk – after 61 years). And it is close to the EEC/EU since 1963. The Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (who declared that he considers anti-Semitism as a crime against humanity, as well as islamophobia, and who suggested the alliance of civilizations with the Spanish prime minister José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero), said last week: “The EU makes Turkey wait for 50 years. There is no other country that waited 50 years”.
The EU is not credible because it does not keep its promises. And some countries are satisfied about that. But we must clear something up: Turkey is neither responsible for the glaciation of the EU-Turkey negotiations process, nor for the anti-Turkish conditioning of the citizens of the EU. But in spite of the double standards of several EU governments, the Turkish ship tries to sail closer towards the EU.
Turkey is becoming a more harmonious country by reason of the improvement of its democracy. In fact, Turkey succeeded in adopting the partial reform of its constitution which paves the way for a brand new one, which will be finalized next year with every political party as well as with NGOs, ….
Turkey is also becoming at last an economic and political world power. So why the Turkish citizens would want to be EU members? The Turkish citizens could vote “No” through a referendum at the end of the EU-Turkey negotiations. Why? For two reasons: in the first place because they will be rich, so if they joined the EU they would have to contribute greatly to the EU budget (to the EU budget of that ageing EU that will need 100 million workers until 2030). Then, because they will remember how so numerous EU politicians, governments and media humiliated so much Turkey.
Personally, although I will never forget that outrageous racism from many Europeans, although Turkey will contribute greatly to the EU budget, although the Europeans certainly don’t deserve Turkey, I feel morally bound to support Turkey’s EU membership. Because the fate of the world is more important than their superiority complex or money.
In fact, the EU is unfortunately a political flotsam that can only look at the disastrous world policy imposed for a long time by the United States of America. Nonetheless, once merged with Turkey, the EU will be able to do its job: to strive for the peace in the world. With Turkey within it, the EU will become at last a powerful international political player that will will certainly be able to suggest an alternative to the military policies of the USA and their industrial lobbies. That EU will be their rival. By the way, due to the very sensitive geo-strategic position of Turkey, let’s underline that with an EU member Turkey, the EU will not need any aircraft carrier.
The anti-Turkish racism of numerous politicians and media of the EU is disgusting. But they are not important. Because the planet has many problems that the EU-Turkey alliance will be able to resolve efficiently. That alliance must not be jeopardized by these traitors towards Robert Schuman and Jean Monnet (are they afraid of becoming better and stronger with an EU including Turkey?).
PS. As far as I’m concerned, in France, I’ve never read at school or at secondary school any history book that dealt with Atatürk and the plan that he achieved (he was asked one day: “Are you happy?”. Atatürk answered: “Yes, because I made it”). For decades, I have never heard of any programme on television regarding the independent secular Turkish republic that Atatürk created. Something else: the Turkish women had the right to vote well before the French women, but given there is a superiority complex in France, that information is blocked. Any positive information regarding Turkey is not tolerated. In spite of that blatant anti-Turkish propaganda based on hatred, I believe the very beautiful Turkish language ought to be an official language of the EU, because the world deserves an EU member Turkey.
PPS. What is also positive is that when Turkey is a member of the EU, the most beautiful present that it will give it is its culture, because the Turkish culture is very rich. It will be a promising and symbolic contribution.
PPPS. Message to the Turkish readers: we’ll never know what Atatürk would have decided today (anyway, if he was alive, Turkey would have been a great world power for a long time). But in spite of such racism of the EU, perhaps that we ought to swallow our pride and pursue what Atatürk started, perhaps that we we ought to keep in mind Atatürk’s peace messages.
The EU does not know Turkey:cem