Thirteen members of the European Union have been told to take action and get their budget deficits back in line.
EU requirements mean that they should not exceed 3% of the country's GDP. However, since the financial crisis most countries have broken that rule.
Deadlines ranging from 2012 to 2014 have been issued.
France, the UK, Spain and the Irish Republic have longer to comply because their economies have worsened since the original deadline was imposed in April.
'Bite the bullet'
France has already warned that it will not meet the new deadline. The government wants to focus on boosting growth rather than cutting spending.
Germany and six other countries have until 2013. Belgium and Italy have the tighter deadline of 2012.
The BBC's business correspondent in Brussels, Nigel Cassidy, said the EU's economy commissioner, Joaquin Almunia, saved his harshest criticism for Greece. Mr Almunia said the country had taken "no effective action".
Our correspondent said: "Ultimately the message from Brussels is straightforward enough. Economic crisis notwithstanding, the named countries must bite the bullet and act now to cut their borrowings".
He says that will mean tax rises or benefit cuts in order to bring budget deficits under control.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Friday, November 6, 2009
Turkey defends Sudan leader visit
Turkish President Abdullah Gul has accused the EU of interfering after Istanbul was asked to reconsider an invitation to the president of Sudan.
Omar al-Bashir has been indicted for war crimes by the International Criminal Court (ICC).
But Mr Gul said he was invited to a summit of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), not for bilateral talks with Turkish officials.
Turkey, which has applied for EU membership, does not recognise the ICC.
It says it has no plans to arrest Mr Bashir, who is due to attend an OIC economic summit in Istanbul on Sunday and Monday.
Turkey insists it is not shifting away from its traditionally close ties to the West.
But the BBC's Jonathan Head, in Istanbul, says the country is certainly choosing some controversial new partnerships.
The visit by the Sudanese president comes fresh on the heels of the Turkish prime minister's groundbreaking state visit to Iran in October, when Recep Tayyip Erdogan declared that country's nuclear programme to be entirely peaceful.
Mr Bashir's visit to Turkey will be his third in the past 18 months, but his first since the ICC arrest warrant was issued in March.
A coalition of Turkish human rights groups is protesting against the visit, our correspondent says.
They have accused the government of double standards for condemning Israel over its actions in Gaza, and then hosting a president who is blamed for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians in Darfur.
Omar al-Bashir has been indicted for war crimes by the International Criminal Court (ICC).
But Mr Gul said he was invited to a summit of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), not for bilateral talks with Turkish officials.
Turkey, which has applied for EU membership, does not recognise the ICC.
It says it has no plans to arrest Mr Bashir, who is due to attend an OIC economic summit in Istanbul on Sunday and Monday.
Turkey insists it is not shifting away from its traditionally close ties to the West.
But the BBC's Jonathan Head, in Istanbul, says the country is certainly choosing some controversial new partnerships.
The visit by the Sudanese president comes fresh on the heels of the Turkish prime minister's groundbreaking state visit to Iran in October, when Recep Tayyip Erdogan declared that country's nuclear programme to be entirely peaceful.
Mr Bashir's visit to Turkey will be his third in the past 18 months, but his first since the ICC arrest warrant was issued in March.
A coalition of Turkish human rights groups is protesting against the visit, our correspondent says.
They have accused the government of double standards for condemning Israel over its actions in Gaza, and then hosting a president who is blamed for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians in Darfur.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Türk dış politikası İslamileşiyor
Efraim İnbar
Soğuk Savaş’ın bitişiyle birlikte, Kemalist Türkiye İran, Irak ve Suriye’den kaynaklanan ve giderek artan tehditlere karşılık vermesine yardımcı olabilecek Ortadoğulu ortaklar aradı. İsrail kusursuz bir tercihti. Türkiye’nin tehdit algısını paylaşıyordu ve dünyanın yeni hegemonik gücü ABD’de nüfuzu olan güçlü bir Batı yanlısı ülkeydi. Dahası Kudüs, Batı’nın Ankara’nın Kürt isyanına karşı yürüttüğü savaş nedeniyle NATO müttefikine satmaya gönülsüz olduğu askeri teknolojiyi sağlayabilirdi. Sonuçta İsrail’le askeri, ekonomik ve diplomatik ilişkiler gelişip serpildi. İsrail için Ankara’yla yakınlık, ABD’yle ilişkisin-den sonra ikinci sırada geliyordu.
Ancak uluslararası koşullar değişip ulusal çıkarlar yeniden tanımlanırken, ilişkiler soğuyor, hatta uluslararası bir boşanma gerçekleşiyor. İsrail, önemli bir bölgesel güç olan Türkiye’yle kuvvetli ilişkileri sürdürmek konusunda ısrarcı davransa da, Türkiye’nin uluslararası ve ülke içi ortamı değişiyor. İki ülke ara-sındaki mevcut gerilimlerin sebebi bu.
Yepyeni bir perspektif
Türkiye’nin Suriye’ye karşı güç kullanma tehdidinde bulunduğu 1998’den bu yana Şam Kürt isyanına desteği bitirmesi ve Hatay üzerinde hak iddia etmekten vazgeçmesi yönündeki Türk taleplerine riayet ediyor.
Saddam Hüseyin’in Irak’ı 2003’teki ABD işgaliyle tehdit olmaktan çıkarıldı, bu da daha az tehditkâr bir ortam oluşmasına katkıda bulundu. Dahası, ‘proto-İslami’ AKP’nin Türkiye’de iktidara geldiği Ekim 2002’den bu yana, yeni seçkinler bölgeye dair önemli ölçüde farklı bir perspektif ve farklı siyasi öncelikler ihdas etti.
Türkiye kendisini büyük bir güç ve Batı’ya uzanan hayati önemde bir enerji köprüsü olarak görüyor, büyük bir uluslararası ilgiye mazhar olduğunu düşünüyor. Dış ilişkilerdeki giderek büyüyen hevesi, Türkiye’nin uluslararası önemini artırmak umuduyla bölgesel ihtilaflara arabulucuk önermesine yol açmış durumda.
AKP ilk başta İsrail’le iyi ilişkileri sürdürdü. Başbakan Tayyip Erdoğan da dahil Türk liderliği İsrail’i ziyaret etti. Söz konusu dönemin büyük bölümünde işler stratejik alanda bile her zamanki gibi yürüdü. Bunun en son tezahürü İsrail’le Türkiye’nin Ağustos 2009’da düzenlediği donanma tatbikatıydı.
Ancak Kudüs’le Ankara arasındaki anlaşmazlıklar adım adım büyüyor, buna Türkiye’nin Batı’dan giderek uzaklaşması eşlik ediyor. Bilhassa AKP’nin Haziran 2007’de Gazze’yi kanlı bir biçimde ele geçirmesinden hemen sonra Hamas’la diyalog kurma kararı almasının ardından, Filistin meselesi daha fazla yankı buluyor. Bu, Batı’nın İsrail’in yok edilmesini savunan bir terör örgütüyle resmi ilişkilerden kaçınmayı öngören dış politika rotasından bir sapmaydı. Türkiye başbakanı 2009 kışında Gazze’ye düzenlenen Dökme Kurşun Operasyonu sırasında İsrail’i kaba ve ateşli bir biçimde kınadı. Oysa Batı yanlısı Arap ülkeleri bile İsrail’in radikal Hamas’a karşı mücadelesini destekliyordu.
Beşir’i ağırladı
Ulusal seçimleri kazanıp tekrar iktidara geldiğinden beri AKP, dış politikasını yürütmek konusunda
daha büyük bir özgüven sergiliyor. Ağustos 2008’de Türkiye İran İslam Cumhuriyeti’nin tepki toplayan cumhurbaşkanı Mahmud Ahmedinecad’ı resmi bir ziyaret çerçevesinde ağırladı. Hiçbir Batı ülkesi İran liderine böyle bir davette bulunmuş değil. Dahası Ankara Batılı müttefiklerinin aksine, geçenlerde İran’ın nükleer programını engellemeyi hedefleyen hiçbir yaptırıma katılmayacağını açıkladı. Türkiye Ağustos 2008’de, Darfur’da savaş suçu işlemek ve ve soykırım yapmakla suçlanmasına rağmen Sudan devlet başkanı Ömer Beşir’i ağırlayarak Batı’nın ortak tutumundan bir kez daha ayrıldı. Velhasıl Türk dış politikası giderek İslami bir renk kazanıyor.
Görünen o ki İsrail, Türkiye’nin arabuluculuk çabası çerçevesinde Suriye’ye yeterince taviz vermeyerek AKP hükümetini düş kırıklığına uğrattı. Dahası Kudüs Türkiye’nin yeni dışişleri bakanı Ahmet Davutoğlu’nun İsrail’den Gazze’ye geçme isteğini geri çevirdi; Davutoğlu Yahudi devletine geri dönmeden önce Gazze’de Hamas yetkilileriyle görüşecekti. Bu karar İsrail’in, Hamas yetkilileriyle temas eden yabancı devlet adamlarıyla görüşmeme politikasını yansıtıyordu.
Anti-semitik ifadeler kullanıldı
Fakat Davutoğlu tam da, bugünkü Türkiye için epey önemli görünen ‘’arabuluculuk’ izlenimini yaratmak istiyordu. İsrail’in buna izin vermemesi Türkleri çileden çıkardı ve Türkiye rahatsızlığını İsrail hava kuvvetlerinin de katılması planlanan uluslararası ‘Anadolu Kartalı’ tatbikatını iptal ederek göstermeye karar verdi. Türkiye’nin devlet kontrolündeki televizyon kanalında İsrail karşıtı ateşli bir yeni dizinin yayımlanmaya başlaması gerilimleri daha da artırdı.
Son olarak mevcut durum AKP liderliğinin İsrail ve Yahudilere yönelik gerçek antipatisini de yansıtır nitelikte. Erdoğan’ın New York’ta Amerikan Yahudi toplumu liderleriyle en son görüşmesi fiyaskoyla sonuçlandı. İstanbul Üniversitesi’nde geçenlerde yaptığı bir konuşmada da alenen
anti-Semitik ifadeler kullandı.
Batı için büyük stratejik kayıp
İsrail için AKP’nin tutumunu hazmetmek zor olacaktır. En hassas mesele elbette ki silah satışları ve stratejik işbirliği. Kudüs Ankara’nın niye Tahran, Şam ve Gazze’deki diktatörleri Yahudi devletinin demokrasisine tercih ettiğini merak ediyor. Ne yazık ki Türkiye bir kimlik krizi yaşıyor ve iktidar partisinin İslami kökleri iç ve dış meselelerde giderek egemen hale geliyor.
Umut edilir ki Türk demokrasisi, sadece Batı’ya demirlemenin sağlayabileceği ilerlemeyi ve refahı tercih edecek kadar güçlü olsun. Türkiye’nin İslamcılığa sürüklenmesi İsrail ve Batı için büyük bir stratejik kayıp olacaktır. Fakat bu en başta Türkler için bir trajedi anlamına gelecektir.
(The Daily Star- Lübnan’da İngilizce yayımlanan gazete, Bar-İlan Üniversitesi’nde siyaset bilimi profesörü, Begin-Sedat Stratejik Çalışmalar Merkezi direktörü, 28 Ekim 2009)
Soğuk Savaş’ın bitişiyle birlikte, Kemalist Türkiye İran, Irak ve Suriye’den kaynaklanan ve giderek artan tehditlere karşılık vermesine yardımcı olabilecek Ortadoğulu ortaklar aradı. İsrail kusursuz bir tercihti. Türkiye’nin tehdit algısını paylaşıyordu ve dünyanın yeni hegemonik gücü ABD’de nüfuzu olan güçlü bir Batı yanlısı ülkeydi. Dahası Kudüs, Batı’nın Ankara’nın Kürt isyanına karşı yürüttüğü savaş nedeniyle NATO müttefikine satmaya gönülsüz olduğu askeri teknolojiyi sağlayabilirdi. Sonuçta İsrail’le askeri, ekonomik ve diplomatik ilişkiler gelişip serpildi. İsrail için Ankara’yla yakınlık, ABD’yle ilişkisin-den sonra ikinci sırada geliyordu.
Ancak uluslararası koşullar değişip ulusal çıkarlar yeniden tanımlanırken, ilişkiler soğuyor, hatta uluslararası bir boşanma gerçekleşiyor. İsrail, önemli bir bölgesel güç olan Türkiye’yle kuvvetli ilişkileri sürdürmek konusunda ısrarcı davransa da, Türkiye’nin uluslararası ve ülke içi ortamı değişiyor. İki ülke ara-sındaki mevcut gerilimlerin sebebi bu.
Yepyeni bir perspektif
Türkiye’nin Suriye’ye karşı güç kullanma tehdidinde bulunduğu 1998’den bu yana Şam Kürt isyanına desteği bitirmesi ve Hatay üzerinde hak iddia etmekten vazgeçmesi yönündeki Türk taleplerine riayet ediyor.
Saddam Hüseyin’in Irak’ı 2003’teki ABD işgaliyle tehdit olmaktan çıkarıldı, bu da daha az tehditkâr bir ortam oluşmasına katkıda bulundu. Dahası, ‘proto-İslami’ AKP’nin Türkiye’de iktidara geldiği Ekim 2002’den bu yana, yeni seçkinler bölgeye dair önemli ölçüde farklı bir perspektif ve farklı siyasi öncelikler ihdas etti.
Türkiye kendisini büyük bir güç ve Batı’ya uzanan hayati önemde bir enerji köprüsü olarak görüyor, büyük bir uluslararası ilgiye mazhar olduğunu düşünüyor. Dış ilişkilerdeki giderek büyüyen hevesi, Türkiye’nin uluslararası önemini artırmak umuduyla bölgesel ihtilaflara arabulucuk önermesine yol açmış durumda.
AKP ilk başta İsrail’le iyi ilişkileri sürdürdü. Başbakan Tayyip Erdoğan da dahil Türk liderliği İsrail’i ziyaret etti. Söz konusu dönemin büyük bölümünde işler stratejik alanda bile her zamanki gibi yürüdü. Bunun en son tezahürü İsrail’le Türkiye’nin Ağustos 2009’da düzenlediği donanma tatbikatıydı.
Ancak Kudüs’le Ankara arasındaki anlaşmazlıklar adım adım büyüyor, buna Türkiye’nin Batı’dan giderek uzaklaşması eşlik ediyor. Bilhassa AKP’nin Haziran 2007’de Gazze’yi kanlı bir biçimde ele geçirmesinden hemen sonra Hamas’la diyalog kurma kararı almasının ardından, Filistin meselesi daha fazla yankı buluyor. Bu, Batı’nın İsrail’in yok edilmesini savunan bir terör örgütüyle resmi ilişkilerden kaçınmayı öngören dış politika rotasından bir sapmaydı. Türkiye başbakanı 2009 kışında Gazze’ye düzenlenen Dökme Kurşun Operasyonu sırasında İsrail’i kaba ve ateşli bir biçimde kınadı. Oysa Batı yanlısı Arap ülkeleri bile İsrail’in radikal Hamas’a karşı mücadelesini destekliyordu.
Beşir’i ağırladı
Ulusal seçimleri kazanıp tekrar iktidara geldiğinden beri AKP, dış politikasını yürütmek konusunda
daha büyük bir özgüven sergiliyor. Ağustos 2008’de Türkiye İran İslam Cumhuriyeti’nin tepki toplayan cumhurbaşkanı Mahmud Ahmedinecad’ı resmi bir ziyaret çerçevesinde ağırladı. Hiçbir Batı ülkesi İran liderine böyle bir davette bulunmuş değil. Dahası Ankara Batılı müttefiklerinin aksine, geçenlerde İran’ın nükleer programını engellemeyi hedefleyen hiçbir yaptırıma katılmayacağını açıkladı. Türkiye Ağustos 2008’de, Darfur’da savaş suçu işlemek ve ve soykırım yapmakla suçlanmasına rağmen Sudan devlet başkanı Ömer Beşir’i ağırlayarak Batı’nın ortak tutumundan bir kez daha ayrıldı. Velhasıl Türk dış politikası giderek İslami bir renk kazanıyor.
Görünen o ki İsrail, Türkiye’nin arabuluculuk çabası çerçevesinde Suriye’ye yeterince taviz vermeyerek AKP hükümetini düş kırıklığına uğrattı. Dahası Kudüs Türkiye’nin yeni dışişleri bakanı Ahmet Davutoğlu’nun İsrail’den Gazze’ye geçme isteğini geri çevirdi; Davutoğlu Yahudi devletine geri dönmeden önce Gazze’de Hamas yetkilileriyle görüşecekti. Bu karar İsrail’in, Hamas yetkilileriyle temas eden yabancı devlet adamlarıyla görüşmeme politikasını yansıtıyordu.
Anti-semitik ifadeler kullanıldı
Fakat Davutoğlu tam da, bugünkü Türkiye için epey önemli görünen ‘’arabuluculuk’ izlenimini yaratmak istiyordu. İsrail’in buna izin vermemesi Türkleri çileden çıkardı ve Türkiye rahatsızlığını İsrail hava kuvvetlerinin de katılması planlanan uluslararası ‘Anadolu Kartalı’ tatbikatını iptal ederek göstermeye karar verdi. Türkiye’nin devlet kontrolündeki televizyon kanalında İsrail karşıtı ateşli bir yeni dizinin yayımlanmaya başlaması gerilimleri daha da artırdı.
Son olarak mevcut durum AKP liderliğinin İsrail ve Yahudilere yönelik gerçek antipatisini de yansıtır nitelikte. Erdoğan’ın New York’ta Amerikan Yahudi toplumu liderleriyle en son görüşmesi fiyaskoyla sonuçlandı. İstanbul Üniversitesi’nde geçenlerde yaptığı bir konuşmada da alenen
anti-Semitik ifadeler kullandı.
Batı için büyük stratejik kayıp
İsrail için AKP’nin tutumunu hazmetmek zor olacaktır. En hassas mesele elbette ki silah satışları ve stratejik işbirliği. Kudüs Ankara’nın niye Tahran, Şam ve Gazze’deki diktatörleri Yahudi devletinin demokrasisine tercih ettiğini merak ediyor. Ne yazık ki Türkiye bir kimlik krizi yaşıyor ve iktidar partisinin İslami kökleri iç ve dış meselelerde giderek egemen hale geliyor.
Umut edilir ki Türk demokrasisi, sadece Batı’ya demirlemenin sağlayabileceği ilerlemeyi ve refahı tercih edecek kadar güçlü olsun. Türkiye’nin İslamcılığa sürüklenmesi İsrail ve Batı için büyük bir stratejik kayıp olacaktır. Fakat bu en başta Türkler için bir trajedi anlamına gelecektir.
(The Daily Star- Lübnan’da İngilizce yayımlanan gazete, Bar-İlan Üniversitesi’nde siyaset bilimi profesörü, Begin-Sedat Stratejik Çalışmalar Merkezi direktörü, 28 Ekim 2009)
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Putin in new Ukraine gas warning
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has said Ukraine might be having problems paying for gas, raising new concerns over European supplies.
Mr Putin said the European Union had not yet given Ukraine the money it had promised to help provide stable supplies of Russian gas to Europe.
He also blamed Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko for blocking payment.
In January, many countries were left short of gas because of a payment dispute between Moscow and Kiev.
'Blocking funds'
"It appears we are again having problems with payments for our energy supplies, which is extremely regrettable. The EU has still not provided Ukraine with the money it has promised for that purpose," Mr Putin said.
"European leaders are referring us to the European Commission, while the European Commission leadership are evading discussing the issue with us."
But Mr Putin said that despite the lack of funding from the EU, Ukraine still had plenty of cash to pay its gas bills.
Referring to the country's large gold and foreign currency reserves, he said: "According to the Ukrainian Prime Minister [Yulia Tymoshenko], Yushchenko is obstructing normal co-operation between the central bank and the Ukrainian government and is blocking the transfer of relevant funds."
In August, the EU and international lending institutions agreed a $1.7bn (£1bn at the time) loan deal to help secure European gas supplies.
This was specifically designed to ensure that the disruptions to supplies that occurred earlier in the year were not repeated.
Mr Putin's comments have raised concerns that disruptions may happen again.
Russia provides about a quarter of the gas consumed in the EU and 80% of that is piped through Ukraine.
Mr Putin said the European Union had not yet given Ukraine the money it had promised to help provide stable supplies of Russian gas to Europe.
He also blamed Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko for blocking payment.
In January, many countries were left short of gas because of a payment dispute between Moscow and Kiev.
'Blocking funds'
"It appears we are again having problems with payments for our energy supplies, which is extremely regrettable. The EU has still not provided Ukraine with the money it has promised for that purpose," Mr Putin said.
"European leaders are referring us to the European Commission, while the European Commission leadership are evading discussing the issue with us."
But Mr Putin said that despite the lack of funding from the EU, Ukraine still had plenty of cash to pay its gas bills.
Referring to the country's large gold and foreign currency reserves, he said: "According to the Ukrainian Prime Minister [Yulia Tymoshenko], Yushchenko is obstructing normal co-operation between the central bank and the Ukrainian government and is blocking the transfer of relevant funds."
In August, the EU and international lending institutions agreed a $1.7bn (£1bn at the time) loan deal to help secure European gas supplies.
This was specifically designed to ensure that the disruptions to supplies that occurred earlier in the year were not repeated.
Mr Putin's comments have raised concerns that disruptions may happen again.
Russia provides about a quarter of the gas consumed in the EU and 80% of that is piped through Ukraine.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Cyprus downbeat on unification talks
By Tony Barber
Demetris Christofias, president of Cyprus, painted a gloomy picture on Thursday of the prospects for overcoming the island’s division, saying negotiations between Greek and Turkish Cypriots were making little progress.
“Unfortunately, I must say my expectations, and the expectations of the great majority of the people of Cyprus of both communities, have not been justified up to now,” Mr Christofias told reporters in Brussels, where he was preparing for a European Union summit.
Cyprus has been divided into a Greek Cypriot south and a Turkish Cypriot north since 1974, when Turkey invaded the island in response to a Greek-inspired coup aimed at absorbing Cyprus into Greece.
Mr Christofias, leader of the internationally recognised republic of Cyprus, and Mehmet Ali Talat, leader of a secessionist Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus that no country except Turkey recognises, opened talks in September 2008 on reuniting the country as a bizonal, bicommunal federation.
Experts on the Cyprus dispute say the talks are approaching a critical moment because Mr Talat, widely regarded as a moderate who is keen on a settlement, faces a presidential election next April that he appears in danger of losing to a hardline candidate.
However, Mr Christofias said: “These are artificial deadlines. Talat must show more understanding, instead of putting forward intransigent positions. Otherwise, it’s blackmail. I’m not a political fellow who accepts blackmail. I’m ready for a solution before April.”
The EU and US are keen to keep the talks alive, fearing that a breakdown will wreck Turkey’s EU membership bid and hobble efforts to forge closer relations between the EU and Nato.
Mr Christofias put much of the blame on Turkey’s political and military leadership, saying: “The main problem for me is that Turkey must assist in a solution of the Cyprus problem. They must recognise the Republic of Cyprus. They refuse.”
He said he had made a concession by offering citizenship of a reunited Cypriot state to 50,000 Anatolian Turks who have settled in northern Cyprus since 1974. The precise number of Turkish settlers on Cyprus is disputed. Many estimates run to more than 100,000.
Mr Christofias laughed as he described Mr Talat’s response. “He said to me: ‘There are no settlers, there are only citizens of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.’”
Mr Talat, interviewed by the Financial Times in September, said the present talks were “the last chance for a solution”.
Both sides say property disputes are an especially difficult issue, with many Greek Cypriots who lost their homes after 1974 wanting them back, and Turkish Cypriot negotiators defending the new owners and emphasising compensation for the dispossessed. “We have deep, deep differences here,” Mr Christofias said.
Another disagreement concerns a Turkish Cypriot demand for equal numerical representation in some 50 institutions, such as the island’s central bank and competition authority, Mr Christofias said.
Turkish Cypriots accounted for about 20 per cent of Cyprus’s population in 1974, but tens of thousands have since left the island, with arrivals from mainland Turkey more than making up the difference.
Demetris Christofias, president of Cyprus, painted a gloomy picture on Thursday of the prospects for overcoming the island’s division, saying negotiations between Greek and Turkish Cypriots were making little progress.
“Unfortunately, I must say my expectations, and the expectations of the great majority of the people of Cyprus of both communities, have not been justified up to now,” Mr Christofias told reporters in Brussels, where he was preparing for a European Union summit.
Cyprus has been divided into a Greek Cypriot south and a Turkish Cypriot north since 1974, when Turkey invaded the island in response to a Greek-inspired coup aimed at absorbing Cyprus into Greece.
Mr Christofias, leader of the internationally recognised republic of Cyprus, and Mehmet Ali Talat, leader of a secessionist Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus that no country except Turkey recognises, opened talks in September 2008 on reuniting the country as a bizonal, bicommunal federation.
Experts on the Cyprus dispute say the talks are approaching a critical moment because Mr Talat, widely regarded as a moderate who is keen on a settlement, faces a presidential election next April that he appears in danger of losing to a hardline candidate.
However, Mr Christofias said: “These are artificial deadlines. Talat must show more understanding, instead of putting forward intransigent positions. Otherwise, it’s blackmail. I’m not a political fellow who accepts blackmail. I’m ready for a solution before April.”
The EU and US are keen to keep the talks alive, fearing that a breakdown will wreck Turkey’s EU membership bid and hobble efforts to forge closer relations between the EU and Nato.
Mr Christofias put much of the blame on Turkey’s political and military leadership, saying: “The main problem for me is that Turkey must assist in a solution of the Cyprus problem. They must recognise the Republic of Cyprus. They refuse.”
He said he had made a concession by offering citizenship of a reunited Cypriot state to 50,000 Anatolian Turks who have settled in northern Cyprus since 1974. The precise number of Turkish settlers on Cyprus is disputed. Many estimates run to more than 100,000.
Mr Christofias laughed as he described Mr Talat’s response. “He said to me: ‘There are no settlers, there are only citizens of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.’”
Mr Talat, interviewed by the Financial Times in September, said the present talks were “the last chance for a solution”.
Both sides say property disputes are an especially difficult issue, with many Greek Cypriots who lost their homes after 1974 wanting them back, and Turkish Cypriot negotiators defending the new owners and emphasising compensation for the dispossessed. “We have deep, deep differences here,” Mr Christofias said.
Another disagreement concerns a Turkish Cypriot demand for equal numerical representation in some 50 institutions, such as the island’s central bank and competition authority, Mr Christofias said.
Turkish Cypriots accounted for about 20 per cent of Cyprus’s population in 1974, but tens of thousands have since left the island, with arrivals from mainland Turkey more than making up the difference.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Turkey turns east as Europe clings to past
By Philip Stephens
Small incidents can illuminate a bigger picture. A couple of weeks ago, President Abdullah Gul of Turkey opened an exhibition of Ottoman treasures in Paris. The display is the centrepiece of an effort to promote Turkey’s rich heritage. Mr Gul was joined by Nicolas Sarkozy. The French president arrived chewing a piece of gum.
I was told this story during a visit to Istanbul. Mr Sarkozy’s gum-chewing, I heard, served as a metaphor for France’s disdain for Turkey’s European aspirations. The lack of respect set the tone for the two leaders’ working lunch at the Elysée Palace. The atmosphere was described as “polite”. We know what that means.
French officials will doubtless protest that the swaggering Mr Sarkozy had not intended any slight. The president of the French republic has never fully acquainted himself with diplomatic niceties. Yet the sensitivity of his guest was unsurprising. Mr Sarkozy has put himself in the vanguard of European leaders – they include Germany’s Angela Merkel – who are viscerally opposed to Turkish accession to the European Union.
It is half a century since Turkey first knocked on Europe’s door with a bid to join the Common Market. There were plenty of detours on the way to the start of formal accession talks in 2004. Often, it must be said, the fault lay with Turkey. Military coups and political repression did not help make the case for membership of Europe’s democratic club.
That was then. Turkey is still a long way from meeting the democratic terms of EU membership, but few can doubt that it has taken big steps in the right direction. It is the fear that Turkey is within sight of doing what has been asked of it that has led Mr Sarkozy and others to repudiate the original bargain. Admitting Turkey, Mr Sarkozy says, would “dilute” the Union. What he really means is that Europe does not want 70-odd million Muslims.
Unsurprisingly, Turkey’s political classes have run short of patience. They are not interested in the “privileged partnership” offered as a substitute for EU membership. The government of Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the prime minister, has decided to look eastwards.
Turkey is establishing itself as a power-broker and a peace-maker in the Middle East. It is fixing troubled relationships with its neighbours. And it is finding the respect it receives in Arab capitals a lot more convivial than the snubs it is accustomed to in Europe.
Mr Erdogan set out the strategy at the inaugural meeting this week of the Istanbul Forum, hosted by Turkey’s Centre for Strategic Communication, and supported by the German Marshall Fund of the United States. The government, said Mr Erdogan, would continue to pursue its European vocation. But it has no intention of behaving as a helpless supplicant. Turkey is instead assuming a role commensurate with its status as a fast-rising power at the strategic crossroads of east and west.
The strategy has been a big success. A few years ago, Turkey massed tens of thousands of troops on its border with Syria because of that country’s support for PKK Kurdish separatists. Now, detente has seen the two countries open the frontier to visa-free travel. There has been a rapprochement with the Iraqi government and an effort to reach an accommodation with the Kurdish minority. Trade and economic ties with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states are growing rapidly. Turkey, one forum participant told me, knows where the money is.
In the Caucasus, the government has reached an agreement with Armenia that, with luck and effort, could end a century of mutual hostility. Relations with Russia are cordial and with Greece stable.
Ignoring anxieties in western capitals, Turkey has engaged with the Palestinian Hamas and with the Iranian-sponsored Hizbollah in Lebanon. Next week, Mr Erdogan is due in Tehran as Turkey assumes the role of broker between Iran and the west. Ask high-ranking Turkish officials as to the wisdom of some of these relationships and they refer to Barack Obama. Had he not proposed to replace a clenched fist with an outstretched hand? Turkey has to deal with the region as it is, one of Mr Erdogan’s advisers told me.
On the other side of the ledger, the Israeli invasion of Gaza has led to a rupture in the long-standing relationship with Israel. Mr Erdogan sees an Israeli-Palestinian settlement as the sine qua non of strategic stability in Turkey’s back yard. But he has concluded that the Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu has no interest in a deal.
Not everyone is happy with the eastwards turn. Those who have long carried the European torch see the Islamist character of Mr Erdogan’s administration as a serious threat to the secular settlement bequeathed by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey. They worry that the prime minister and his ministers seem more comfortable with regional despots than with the democratic leaders of Europe: that the Muslim may trump the European identity.
The focus and energy devoted to building Turkey’s influence in the Middle East, the critics say, has been at the expense of reforms to strengthen the democratic and secular character of the Turkish state. They point to curbs on free speech and the imposition of Muslim social mores. Mr Erdogan’s government stands accused of imposing a multi-billion-dollar fine on the Dogan group, the country’s leading media business, in a campaign to stifle opposition.
Disquiet is heard also among Turkey’s partners in the Nato alliance. Making peace with old enemies is one thing – Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, played a pivotal role in the deal with Armenia. But cuddling up to regional actors still committed to violence risks taking Turkey beyond a sensible good-neighbours policy.
This may be so. But the west is losing its leverage. US power is being challenged across the Middle East; and Europe seems intent on irrelevance. Mr Erdogan’s Turkey still wants to be part of Europe. And on every challenge – from energy, from terrorism, drugs and migration to trade and investment – Europe has an immutable interest in nurturing a democratic, west-facing Turkey. Its security is the west’s security. But Mr Sarkozy and his like want nothing more than to hold on to the past. Turkey speaks to the world as it is becoming.
Small incidents can illuminate a bigger picture. A couple of weeks ago, President Abdullah Gul of Turkey opened an exhibition of Ottoman treasures in Paris. The display is the centrepiece of an effort to promote Turkey’s rich heritage. Mr Gul was joined by Nicolas Sarkozy. The French president arrived chewing a piece of gum.
I was told this story during a visit to Istanbul. Mr Sarkozy’s gum-chewing, I heard, served as a metaphor for France’s disdain for Turkey’s European aspirations. The lack of respect set the tone for the two leaders’ working lunch at the Elysée Palace. The atmosphere was described as “polite”. We know what that means.
French officials will doubtless protest that the swaggering Mr Sarkozy had not intended any slight. The president of the French republic has never fully acquainted himself with diplomatic niceties. Yet the sensitivity of his guest was unsurprising. Mr Sarkozy has put himself in the vanguard of European leaders – they include Germany’s Angela Merkel – who are viscerally opposed to Turkish accession to the European Union.
It is half a century since Turkey first knocked on Europe’s door with a bid to join the Common Market. There were plenty of detours on the way to the start of formal accession talks in 2004. Often, it must be said, the fault lay with Turkey. Military coups and political repression did not help make the case for membership of Europe’s democratic club.
That was then. Turkey is still a long way from meeting the democratic terms of EU membership, but few can doubt that it has taken big steps in the right direction. It is the fear that Turkey is within sight of doing what has been asked of it that has led Mr Sarkozy and others to repudiate the original bargain. Admitting Turkey, Mr Sarkozy says, would “dilute” the Union. What he really means is that Europe does not want 70-odd million Muslims.
Unsurprisingly, Turkey’s political classes have run short of patience. They are not interested in the “privileged partnership” offered as a substitute for EU membership. The government of Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the prime minister, has decided to look eastwards.
Turkey is establishing itself as a power-broker and a peace-maker in the Middle East. It is fixing troubled relationships with its neighbours. And it is finding the respect it receives in Arab capitals a lot more convivial than the snubs it is accustomed to in Europe.
Mr Erdogan set out the strategy at the inaugural meeting this week of the Istanbul Forum, hosted by Turkey’s Centre for Strategic Communication, and supported by the German Marshall Fund of the United States. The government, said Mr Erdogan, would continue to pursue its European vocation. But it has no intention of behaving as a helpless supplicant. Turkey is instead assuming a role commensurate with its status as a fast-rising power at the strategic crossroads of east and west.
The strategy has been a big success. A few years ago, Turkey massed tens of thousands of troops on its border with Syria because of that country’s support for PKK Kurdish separatists. Now, detente has seen the two countries open the frontier to visa-free travel. There has been a rapprochement with the Iraqi government and an effort to reach an accommodation with the Kurdish minority. Trade and economic ties with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states are growing rapidly. Turkey, one forum participant told me, knows where the money is.
In the Caucasus, the government has reached an agreement with Armenia that, with luck and effort, could end a century of mutual hostility. Relations with Russia are cordial and with Greece stable.
Ignoring anxieties in western capitals, Turkey has engaged with the Palestinian Hamas and with the Iranian-sponsored Hizbollah in Lebanon. Next week, Mr Erdogan is due in Tehran as Turkey assumes the role of broker between Iran and the west. Ask high-ranking Turkish officials as to the wisdom of some of these relationships and they refer to Barack Obama. Had he not proposed to replace a clenched fist with an outstretched hand? Turkey has to deal with the region as it is, one of Mr Erdogan’s advisers told me.
On the other side of the ledger, the Israeli invasion of Gaza has led to a rupture in the long-standing relationship with Israel. Mr Erdogan sees an Israeli-Palestinian settlement as the sine qua non of strategic stability in Turkey’s back yard. But he has concluded that the Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu has no interest in a deal.
Not everyone is happy with the eastwards turn. Those who have long carried the European torch see the Islamist character of Mr Erdogan’s administration as a serious threat to the secular settlement bequeathed by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey. They worry that the prime minister and his ministers seem more comfortable with regional despots than with the democratic leaders of Europe: that the Muslim may trump the European identity.
The focus and energy devoted to building Turkey’s influence in the Middle East, the critics say, has been at the expense of reforms to strengthen the democratic and secular character of the Turkish state. They point to curbs on free speech and the imposition of Muslim social mores. Mr Erdogan’s government stands accused of imposing a multi-billion-dollar fine on the Dogan group, the country’s leading media business, in a campaign to stifle opposition.
Disquiet is heard also among Turkey’s partners in the Nato alliance. Making peace with old enemies is one thing – Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, played a pivotal role in the deal with Armenia. But cuddling up to regional actors still committed to violence risks taking Turkey beyond a sensible good-neighbours policy.
This may be so. But the west is losing its leverage. US power is being challenged across the Middle East; and Europe seems intent on irrelevance. Mr Erdogan’s Turkey still wants to be part of Europe. And on every challenge – from energy, from terrorism, drugs and migration to trade and investment – Europe has an immutable interest in nurturing a democratic, west-facing Turkey. Its security is the west’s security. But Mr Sarkozy and his like want nothing more than to hold on to the past. Turkey speaks to the world as it is becoming.
Ahmadi-Nejad praises Turkish stance on Israel
By Delphine Strauss
Recep Tayyip Erdogan won praise from Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad on Tuesday for his public criticism of Israel as the Turkish and Iranian leaders mounted a display of friendship in sharp contrast to the recent low in Turkish-Israeli relations .
“Your clear stance against the Zionist regime [as Iran terms Israel] had a positive impact in the world which undoubtedly made all nations happy,” Mr Ahmadi-Nejad told his guest, in comments reported by Iran’s official media.
His approval of Mr Erdogan’s frequent outbursts against Israeli policy is a potential embarrassment as Turkey seeks to convince western partners it is not abandoning old alliances to forge a new role in the Middle East and in regional diplomacy.
Ankara fears having a nuclear-armed neighbour and declares itself ready to help in talks over Iran’s nuclear programme as an interlocutor trusted by all sides, but some in the US already doubt whether it is delivering a tough enough message.
“This is an energy project that is peaceful and humanitarian,” Mr Erdogan said in a televised news conference, adding that Iran had shown a “positive attitude” in the recent talks with six world powers in Geneva. Diplomats in Ankara argue Turkey’s message is more effective for being delivered in friendly fashion, behind closed doors.
But Ian Lesser, a fellow at the German Marshall Fund, told a recent conference: “The US is really going to want to know that Turkey is taking tough messages to Iran, and I think a lot of Americans are uncertain about that.”
Mr Erdogan’s visit to Tehran – the first by any influential leader since Mr Ahmadi-Nejad’s controversial re-election – is also aimed at securing closer economic ties.
Turkey’s state oil company TPAO will begin exploration next month in Iran’s South Pars gas field, aiming to produce an annual 35bn cubic metres of gas, Turkish energy minister Taner Yildiz said on Tuesday, according to the state-run Anatolian news agency. A multi-billion dollar deal reached in 2007 has been long-delayed.
Turkey relies on Iran for a significant part of its gas imports and would like Iranian gas to flow through the planned Nabucco pipeline to European markets – something the US opposes under current political conditions.
Additional reporting by Najmeh Bozorgmehr in Tehran
Recep Tayyip Erdogan won praise from Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad on Tuesday for his public criticism of Israel as the Turkish and Iranian leaders mounted a display of friendship in sharp contrast to the recent low in Turkish-Israeli relations .
“Your clear stance against the Zionist regime [as Iran terms Israel] had a positive impact in the world which undoubtedly made all nations happy,” Mr Ahmadi-Nejad told his guest, in comments reported by Iran’s official media.
His approval of Mr Erdogan’s frequent outbursts against Israeli policy is a potential embarrassment as Turkey seeks to convince western partners it is not abandoning old alliances to forge a new role in the Middle East and in regional diplomacy.
Ankara fears having a nuclear-armed neighbour and declares itself ready to help in talks over Iran’s nuclear programme as an interlocutor trusted by all sides, but some in the US already doubt whether it is delivering a tough enough message.
“This is an energy project that is peaceful and humanitarian,” Mr Erdogan said in a televised news conference, adding that Iran had shown a “positive attitude” in the recent talks with six world powers in Geneva. Diplomats in Ankara argue Turkey’s message is more effective for being delivered in friendly fashion, behind closed doors.
But Ian Lesser, a fellow at the German Marshall Fund, told a recent conference: “The US is really going to want to know that Turkey is taking tough messages to Iran, and I think a lot of Americans are uncertain about that.”
Mr Erdogan’s visit to Tehran – the first by any influential leader since Mr Ahmadi-Nejad’s controversial re-election – is also aimed at securing closer economic ties.
Turkey’s state oil company TPAO will begin exploration next month in Iran’s South Pars gas field, aiming to produce an annual 35bn cubic metres of gas, Turkish energy minister Taner Yildiz said on Tuesday, according to the state-run Anatolian news agency. A multi-billion dollar deal reached in 2007 has been long-delayed.
Turkey relies on Iran for a significant part of its gas imports and would like Iranian gas to flow through the planned Nabucco pipeline to European markets – something the US opposes under current political conditions.
Additional reporting by Najmeh Bozorgmehr in Tehran
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)