Yet, as one EU diplomat in Ankara says, the biggest obstacle to Turkish membership is not the EU: it is Turkey. In part, this is a question of understanding. The Turks see EU accession as a matter of genuine negotiation: if they make concessions, they expect concessions in return (eg, on northern Cyprus, see article). In reality, the talks are just about assuming the obligations of the EU's acquis communautaire. These include not just boring single-market measures but such broader concerns as human rights, the treatment of minorities and religious and democratic freedoms.
http://www.economist.com/world/europe/d ... id=3962101
I never thought to see the day when the ECONOMIST could publish such an unfavorable, to Turkey, article.
This article is no only published in the magazine, but it is also available to internet readers for free (normally, you must be sub-scriber to read it)
Is there anything "new" in the works, or is it simply a "tragic" mistake? Is this the prelude of a switch of British policy, during their up-coming EU presidency, or is it another game ( "look clean and impartial to all, while doing the “usual dirty business” behind the scenes"), a change of tactics of the standard Foreign Office policies?
This makes a recent speech by General Hilmi Ozkok, the army's chief of staff, interesting and, in some respects, troubling. The general observed that Turkey had a security interest in northern Cyprus, that allegations of genocide against Armenians in 1915 had no basis and that the Americans were not doing enough to stamp out PKK terrorists in northern Iraq.
It might seem odd that a general should say any of these things publicly now, but in Turkey the army still plays a key role in upholding Ataturk's secular legacy. In effect, the generals have embraced the country's EU aspirations, but only on the basis that EU membership will support and not undermine that legacy. Yet a strand of Turkish opinion clearly frets that support for religious and minority freedoms may conflict with Ataturkism; and that acceptance of more autonomy for Kurds may threaten Turkey's territorial integrity.
General Ozkok's conclusion was that saying yes or no must be a right not only for the EU, but also for Turkey. It would be an irony if, after working so hard to overcome European hostility to their joining the club, the Turks themselves came to decide that the rules were too onerous—but it is not impossible to imagine.
