Interesting editorial below. Slight correction....it should read 2004 referendum.
______________________________________________
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion ... =12&y=2006
Turkey’s Albatross
15 December 2006
Turkey's supporters claim that the reason its bid to join the EU has been put on ice is because the Republic of Cyprus has vetoed it and/or because the Europeans do not want a Muslim-majority state to join. They are wrong — at least for the moment. It is not the Cypriot government that has effectively blocked Turkish membership for the time being; it was a collective EU decision. The fact is that, at the moment, it is Ankara that is blocking Turkey’s accession to the EU. It has played the accession negotiations incredibly badly.
The process to join the EU is like a plane speeding along a runway; there is a point after which take-off — and membership — becomes inevitable. The Republic of Cyprus got in despite the disaster of the 2003 referendum, when the Turks said “Yes” to the UN’s reunification plans and the Greeks said “No”, because it was too late to halt the process. Likewise Bulgaria and Romania are going to get in despite most ordinary Europeans not wanting any new members in the foreseeable future. Again, it is too late to prevent their joining.
Ankara has not grasped this simple fact. If it played by the EU negotiation rules, then membership will happen whatever the opposition. A momentum will take over. The Cypriots and others would not be given the chance to say “No”. There would not be any grounds for a veto.
On the issue of Cyprus, Turkey has tried to have its cake and eat it too — and this cannot be done. It promised last year to lift its blockade of Greek Cypriot ports and airports but refused unless Europe suspended its blockade of Turkish Cypriot ports — in short trying to force a de facto recognition of northern Cyprus.
That is a nonstarter. No one other than Ankara recognizes the Turkish Cypriot state. Saudi Arabia does not, Egypt does not, no one else in the Middle East does, nor any other country in the world.
Europe is not going to change its mind on northern Cyprus. Turkey has to make a choice; either it is committed to the Turkish Cypriot state or it is committed to Europe. It cannot have both. The option is not available.
The issue is bigger than blockades. Its military presence in northern Cyprus will be the next stumbling block. That was one of the prime reasons why Greek Cypriots failed to endorse the 2003 UN plan: Turkish withdrawal was not on offer. The EU has so far steered clear of the issue, hoping that it can be resolved as part of an overall Cypriot settlement. But there is no way that it is going to allow a country to join if that country occupies part of a member state, and that state objects to the occupation.
Cyprus is an albatross around Turkey’s neck. Like the US in Iraq, it needs an exit strategy. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the situation, the cold political reality is that until it gets out of Cyprus, it is not going to get into Europe. Turkey should perhaps use the time afforded by the negotiations being put on hold to face up to that fact and deal with it.
Turkey’s Albatross
2 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Turkey’s Albatross
by joe » Fri Dec 15, 2006 4:21 am
-
joe - Contributor
- Posts: 492
- Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 5:50 am
- Location: I hail from the Republic of Cyprus
by Murataga » Fri Dec 15, 2006 6:07 am
Everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion. However, it is very important to have balance. Here is a good contribution with a little bit more "science" to it...
http://www.turkishweekly.net/comments.php?id=2366
What is Turkey’s Importance All About?
Barin Kayaoglu
Monday , 27 November 2006
News agencies recently reported that former German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt delivered a lecture at Florence last week, arguing that in contrast to popular thinking, Turkey was not a bridge between Europe and the Muslim world and that it was in fact disliked in the Arab world. The heyday of the address allegedly came when Schmidt said that “it is suffice to remember how Arabs suffered under Ottoman rule.” Because of the Ottoman past, incorporating Turkey would be counter-productive to the European Union, Moreover, he continued, Turkey’s EU membership was not in European interests and was indeed pushed by the United States. [1]
It is important to attend to such questions, especially when they come from senior statesmen. Let us embark on a mind-quest to figure out just exactly what Turkey’s “importance” is all about. What do we really mean by Turkey being a “bridge” or a “model country” to the Muslim world? Is Turkey really a viable answer to the problems of the world today? If so, what are those lessons?
Modernizing the state and the socio-economy of the land was one of the greatest hardships that challenged the Ottoman Empire. Renowned historian İlber Ortaylı calls the 19th century the “Empire’s Longest Century.” Ottoman reforms, even though always intended to modernize the armed forces first, extended to other aspects of the Empire’s life: a secular legal system, a new education system, female emancipation, the advent of a lively press and intelligentsia all came about during the 19th century. It was during the 19th century that the power of the sultan was legally curbed through a constitution. This was extremely significant, one should bear in mind, because the Ottoman sultan held the title of caliph, the nominal successor of the Prophet Mohammed. What really happened with the Ottoman example was the limitations imposed to the authority of an Islamic absolute monarch who was believed to hold divine right.
For those who study political science or European history, there is nothing new here. But it was a historic precedent for a Muslim empire to witness the rise of a parliamentary and constitutional system. Ottoman constitutionalism, for sure, was not trouble-free. Sultan Abdülhamid II suspended the constitution and kept the parliament shut for over thirty years from 1877 until 1908.
Another very important element of the Ottoman experience was what has been dubbed Pax Ottomana (Ottoman peace). As can be inferred from the name, this system involved the peaceful co-existence of different nations under Ottoman imperial rule. The central government did not interfere with the intra-ethnic workings of its constituent communities and sustained a multi-cultural social order until the very end. Pax Ottomana ultimately collapsed, with tragic consequences: present-day Middle East and Balkans, as well as the mutual headaches between Turks and Armenians are but a few of these. The peace and tranquility that the Ottomans delivered to the Balkans and the Middle East remain to be resuscitated.
The Ottomans had the greatest misfortune of being on the losing side at the end of World War I. Faced with an ominous partition, Turkey managed to negotiate a more fair peace treaty with the Allies thanks to its successful conclusion of its War of Independence in 1922 under the leadership of its founding father, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk.
Volumes have been written on Atatürk’s legacy. There are but two very important points to bear in mind about that legacy: democracy and secularism. One of the virtues of Atatürk – and there were many of them – was that he was a great visionary. He restructured the Turkish political system in such a way that despite all of the challenges, it has been able to remain both democratic and secular and adapt to changing global dynamics. Secularism, the separation of church – well, in Turkey’s case mosque – and state, has been the core element through which Turkish society has been able to safely practice its myriad religious aspirations. For their part, Turkish statesmen have had an easier time in running the state as secularism freed their hands from addressing religious concerns and allowed them to operate pragmatically in the realm of politics. In other words, secularism has empowered Turkey.
Democracy has also been a blessing for Turkey. Since the establishment of the Republic in 1923, Turkey has always claimed to be a democracy of some sort. This claim was realized in the late 1940s with the advent of multi-party politics and an extension of the boundaries of freedom of expression. Those years were marked by incessant political turmoil and economic instability but today Turkish people elect their representatives and despite all the problems that trouble the country, such as poverty and the inadequacy of public services, they remain hopeful. In spite all of its deficiencies, Turkey sustains a vibrant civil society and press which exert a remarkable degree of influence over the state. Democracy, just like secularism, has empowered Turkish people.
One should aviod the trapdoor of self-righteousness, however. The setup of the Directorate of Religious Affairs (Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığı – which does not sponsor non-Sunni Muslim places of worship) and the remaining obstacles to free speech (such as the hideous article 301 of the penal code) are still formidable setbacks for Turkey. The solution to these problems are not intractable, nevertheless. The inclusion of other major religious parties in the country –the leaders of Alawite foundations, Greek and Armenian Orthodox patriarchs, and the Chief Rabbi – would not only enrich the intellectual aura of divinity schools and the Directorate itself, but also grant tremendous legitimacy to the state’s supervisory role over religion. As for freedom of expression, it has been stated time and again in this column to view free speech not as a danger, but as one of Turkey’s most important allies. Anybody who wishes to disagree with anything – with the caveat that they do not espouse violence – should have their say. That is the best and luckily the only option before Turkey.[2]
Notwithstanding these nuisances, any objective commentator must appreciate the democratic and secular character of Turkey. Turkey is the only country that combines the elements of being Muslim, democratic, and secular. This is a unique thing in the world today. No other Muslim country has managed to combine these three characteristics yet.
The question is, then, as to what can be done in a turbulent world. Many people would agree that there is a significant democratic deficit in Muslim countries today. We cannot afford to ignore this problem that has global ramifications. Lack of proper governance in distant parts of the world affects each and every member of the global community. The answer to that problem is to empower Muslims around the world. The only way to do that is to follow Turkey’s example. Islam is not inherently in conflict with modernization. The problem is not with Islam but with how Muslims interpret it. We ought to realize that not only are secularism and democracy not in contradiction with Islam, but they in fact augment it. Turkey is the case in point. For the past 80 years, and even before that, religious tension has not been a major issue in Turkey. Turkish people enjoy both the pleasantries of mundane life while practicing their religions freely.
Perhaps the statement by Prime Minister Mr. Tayyip Erdoğan’s former senior advisor sums all of what has been said so far. About a year ago, Mr. Ömer Çelik stated that secularism was the greatest power (“nuclear” power, as he put it) which Turkey had in comparison with the Middle East. The Republic’s secular and democratic characteristics, according to Çelik, were proof that Turkey’s political ideals were compatible with those of Europe.[3]
Turkey is at a critical juncture in its accession negotiations with the EU. Those who follow this column already know that I have lost my enthusiasm for Turkey’s EU membership. But it would be too foolish to deny the fact that there is still a historic opportunity before the EU and the West. By faithfully negotiating with a Muslim country that has been a part of Europe for centuries (bear in mind that the Ottoman Empire was a European power even more than a Middle Eastern one), the EU and the West have it within their grasp to turn to other Muslim countries around the world and convincingly make the case that there are genuine benefits by joining the global community through democratization and secularization. This appeal will not be easy and that Turkey may not join the EU. Nevertheless, even by accepting Turkey as a legitimate partner, European countries can counter most of the criticisms that they are Islamophobic. Following Turkey’s example, Muslim countries will finally ease their suspicions in their dealings with the West.
Turkey is the best asset that Europe can hope to incorporate in the brave new millenium. The European Union with Turkey would serve European interests more than Turkish interests in the long run. The decision to walk that bridge is for Europeans like Helmut Schmidt to decide.
+++
24 November 2006
Barın Kayaoğlu is a Ph.D. student in history at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, Virginia and a regular contributor to the Journal of Turkish Weekly.
E-mail: [email protected]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] “Schmidt: Türkiye Köprü değil” (Schmidt: Turkey is not a bridge), ntvmsnbc.com, November 18, 2006; available from http://www.ntvmsnbc.com/news/391283.asp.
[2] Barın Kayaoğlu, “Turkey’s Allies are Common Sense and Freedom of Expression,” Journal of Turkish Weekly, October 25, 2006; available from http://www.turkishweekly.net/comments.php?id=2339.
[3] “Laiklik Türkiye’nin elinde nükleer güç gibi” (Secularism is like nuclear power for Turkey), Sabah, October 13, 2005; available from http://www.sabah.com.tr/2005/10/13/siy102.html.
http://www.turkishweekly.net/comments.php?id=2366
What is Turkey’s Importance All About?
Barin Kayaoglu
Monday , 27 November 2006
News agencies recently reported that former German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt delivered a lecture at Florence last week, arguing that in contrast to popular thinking, Turkey was not a bridge between Europe and the Muslim world and that it was in fact disliked in the Arab world. The heyday of the address allegedly came when Schmidt said that “it is suffice to remember how Arabs suffered under Ottoman rule.” Because of the Ottoman past, incorporating Turkey would be counter-productive to the European Union, Moreover, he continued, Turkey’s EU membership was not in European interests and was indeed pushed by the United States. [1]
It is important to attend to such questions, especially when they come from senior statesmen. Let us embark on a mind-quest to figure out just exactly what Turkey’s “importance” is all about. What do we really mean by Turkey being a “bridge” or a “model country” to the Muslim world? Is Turkey really a viable answer to the problems of the world today? If so, what are those lessons?
Modernizing the state and the socio-economy of the land was one of the greatest hardships that challenged the Ottoman Empire. Renowned historian İlber Ortaylı calls the 19th century the “Empire’s Longest Century.” Ottoman reforms, even though always intended to modernize the armed forces first, extended to other aspects of the Empire’s life: a secular legal system, a new education system, female emancipation, the advent of a lively press and intelligentsia all came about during the 19th century. It was during the 19th century that the power of the sultan was legally curbed through a constitution. This was extremely significant, one should bear in mind, because the Ottoman sultan held the title of caliph, the nominal successor of the Prophet Mohammed. What really happened with the Ottoman example was the limitations imposed to the authority of an Islamic absolute monarch who was believed to hold divine right.
For those who study political science or European history, there is nothing new here. But it was a historic precedent for a Muslim empire to witness the rise of a parliamentary and constitutional system. Ottoman constitutionalism, for sure, was not trouble-free. Sultan Abdülhamid II suspended the constitution and kept the parliament shut for over thirty years from 1877 until 1908.
Another very important element of the Ottoman experience was what has been dubbed Pax Ottomana (Ottoman peace). As can be inferred from the name, this system involved the peaceful co-existence of different nations under Ottoman imperial rule. The central government did not interfere with the intra-ethnic workings of its constituent communities and sustained a multi-cultural social order until the very end. Pax Ottomana ultimately collapsed, with tragic consequences: present-day Middle East and Balkans, as well as the mutual headaches between Turks and Armenians are but a few of these. The peace and tranquility that the Ottomans delivered to the Balkans and the Middle East remain to be resuscitated.
The Ottomans had the greatest misfortune of being on the losing side at the end of World War I. Faced with an ominous partition, Turkey managed to negotiate a more fair peace treaty with the Allies thanks to its successful conclusion of its War of Independence in 1922 under the leadership of its founding father, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk.
Volumes have been written on Atatürk’s legacy. There are but two very important points to bear in mind about that legacy: democracy and secularism. One of the virtues of Atatürk – and there were many of them – was that he was a great visionary. He restructured the Turkish political system in such a way that despite all of the challenges, it has been able to remain both democratic and secular and adapt to changing global dynamics. Secularism, the separation of church – well, in Turkey’s case mosque – and state, has been the core element through which Turkish society has been able to safely practice its myriad religious aspirations. For their part, Turkish statesmen have had an easier time in running the state as secularism freed their hands from addressing religious concerns and allowed them to operate pragmatically in the realm of politics. In other words, secularism has empowered Turkey.
Democracy has also been a blessing for Turkey. Since the establishment of the Republic in 1923, Turkey has always claimed to be a democracy of some sort. This claim was realized in the late 1940s with the advent of multi-party politics and an extension of the boundaries of freedom of expression. Those years were marked by incessant political turmoil and economic instability but today Turkish people elect their representatives and despite all the problems that trouble the country, such as poverty and the inadequacy of public services, they remain hopeful. In spite all of its deficiencies, Turkey sustains a vibrant civil society and press which exert a remarkable degree of influence over the state. Democracy, just like secularism, has empowered Turkish people.
One should aviod the trapdoor of self-righteousness, however. The setup of the Directorate of Religious Affairs (Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığı – which does not sponsor non-Sunni Muslim places of worship) and the remaining obstacles to free speech (such as the hideous article 301 of the penal code) are still formidable setbacks for Turkey. The solution to these problems are not intractable, nevertheless. The inclusion of other major religious parties in the country –the leaders of Alawite foundations, Greek and Armenian Orthodox patriarchs, and the Chief Rabbi – would not only enrich the intellectual aura of divinity schools and the Directorate itself, but also grant tremendous legitimacy to the state’s supervisory role over religion. As for freedom of expression, it has been stated time and again in this column to view free speech not as a danger, but as one of Turkey’s most important allies. Anybody who wishes to disagree with anything – with the caveat that they do not espouse violence – should have their say. That is the best and luckily the only option before Turkey.[2]
Notwithstanding these nuisances, any objective commentator must appreciate the democratic and secular character of Turkey. Turkey is the only country that combines the elements of being Muslim, democratic, and secular. This is a unique thing in the world today. No other Muslim country has managed to combine these three characteristics yet.
The question is, then, as to what can be done in a turbulent world. Many people would agree that there is a significant democratic deficit in Muslim countries today. We cannot afford to ignore this problem that has global ramifications. Lack of proper governance in distant parts of the world affects each and every member of the global community. The answer to that problem is to empower Muslims around the world. The only way to do that is to follow Turkey’s example. Islam is not inherently in conflict with modernization. The problem is not with Islam but with how Muslims interpret it. We ought to realize that not only are secularism and democracy not in contradiction with Islam, but they in fact augment it. Turkey is the case in point. For the past 80 years, and even before that, religious tension has not been a major issue in Turkey. Turkish people enjoy both the pleasantries of mundane life while practicing their religions freely.
Perhaps the statement by Prime Minister Mr. Tayyip Erdoğan’s former senior advisor sums all of what has been said so far. About a year ago, Mr. Ömer Çelik stated that secularism was the greatest power (“nuclear” power, as he put it) which Turkey had in comparison with the Middle East. The Republic’s secular and democratic characteristics, according to Çelik, were proof that Turkey’s political ideals were compatible with those of Europe.[3]
Turkey is at a critical juncture in its accession negotiations with the EU. Those who follow this column already know that I have lost my enthusiasm for Turkey’s EU membership. But it would be too foolish to deny the fact that there is still a historic opportunity before the EU and the West. By faithfully negotiating with a Muslim country that has been a part of Europe for centuries (bear in mind that the Ottoman Empire was a European power even more than a Middle Eastern one), the EU and the West have it within their grasp to turn to other Muslim countries around the world and convincingly make the case that there are genuine benefits by joining the global community through democratization and secularization. This appeal will not be easy and that Turkey may not join the EU. Nevertheless, even by accepting Turkey as a legitimate partner, European countries can counter most of the criticisms that they are Islamophobic. Following Turkey’s example, Muslim countries will finally ease their suspicions in their dealings with the West.
Turkey is the best asset that Europe can hope to incorporate in the brave new millenium. The European Union with Turkey would serve European interests more than Turkish interests in the long run. The decision to walk that bridge is for Europeans like Helmut Schmidt to decide.
+++
24 November 2006
Barın Kayaoğlu is a Ph.D. student in history at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, Virginia and a regular contributor to the Journal of Turkish Weekly.
E-mail: [email protected]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] “Schmidt: Türkiye Köprü değil” (Schmidt: Turkey is not a bridge), ntvmsnbc.com, November 18, 2006; available from http://www.ntvmsnbc.com/news/391283.asp.
[2] Barın Kayaoğlu, “Turkey’s Allies are Common Sense and Freedom of Expression,” Journal of Turkish Weekly, October 25, 2006; available from http://www.turkishweekly.net/comments.php?id=2339.
[3] “Laiklik Türkiye’nin elinde nükleer güç gibi” (Secularism is like nuclear power for Turkey), Sabah, October 13, 2005; available from http://www.sabah.com.tr/2005/10/13/siy102.html.
-
Murataga - Contributor
- Posts: 824
- Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2006 5:32 pm
2 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
© 2002 - 2015 Cyprus-Forum.com
