Hurdles in Turkey’s way

WHILE most of us remain focused on the implications of the recent US mid-term elections, important and possibly far-reaching developments have been taking place regarding Turkey’s long-awaited membership to the European Union. Turkey has always viewed itself as a European country. After all, was Turkey not a European superpower for centuries? Did its empire not extend all the way to the very borders of the Austrian and Russian empires? More importantly, did Turkey not offer the oppressed minorities of Europe, including the fleeing Jews from Catholic Spain, refuge and job opportunities in Muslim Turkey?

Ever since modern Turkey rose from the ashes of the dismembered Ottoman empire, this predominantly Muslim country has been a secular democracy, closely aligned with the West. It was a founding member of the UN, a member of the Council of Europe since 1949, of Nato since 1952 and of the OECD since 1961. And, as far back as 1959, Ankara began to coordinate closely with the then European Economic Community, with the oft-stated desire to join the EEC’s successor, the present-day European Union.

And yet as late as December 1997, EU leaders at their Luxembourg summit, declined to grant candidate status to Turkey, although even the former Warsaw Pact countries of Eastern Europe, were placed on a fast track to enable them to gain quick membership. Thereafter, from 2001, the Turkish government began a national programme for adoption of EU laws, as well as amendments to the country’s constitution to meet EU’s political criteria.

But it was not until October 2005 that formal negotiations on Turkey’s membership were symbolically opened and it was only on June 12, 2006, that the examination of the acquis communautaire, the whole body of European laws that aspiring members to the EU must adopt, began. Though this was a welcome development, the EU’s attitude towards Turkey’s membership has always been a highly controversial issue that raises considerable emotions, at both the political and popular levels.

This ambivalence was also reflected in the document of June 29, 2006, under which the EU began formal membership negotiations with Turkey. It affirmed that the negotiations would be “open-ended”, the decisions would require unanimity and they would be concluded only after 2014. More troubling was the demand that Turkey would have to abandon its support for the Turkish Cypriot Republic, a pillar of Turkey’s domestic and foreign policy since the island was divided in 1974.

These technical reservations, however, mask fundamental political, cultural and economic differences that have continued to cloud the issue of Turkey’s accession to the Union. Many Europeans have not forgotten that the Turks had laid siege to Vienna not once, but twice. Some European politicians have, therefore, not hesitated to point out that should Turkey join the Union, it would become the EU’s most populous member-state, with its current population of 71 million projected to increase to 85 million in the next 20 years. On the other hand, the population of Germany, which is currently EU’s largest member-state with 83 million people, would decrease to around 80 million by 2020.

This has encouraged some of Turkey’s detractors to call for defining Europe’s geographical frontiers in the context of the Treaty of Rome that had declared that the Union be based on shared common values. In other words, there was no place in such a club for a Muslim country.

This is evident from the fact that it is the issue of cultural and religious differences that has aroused the deepest emotions on both sides of the political divide. While those that support Turkey’s membership point to the current cultural and religious mosaic within the EU as its strength, those in the opposing camp claim that the European Union is primarily a club based on Judeo-Christian religious beliefs and cultural practices.

Of course, Turkey’s alleged human rights violations, as well as Ankara’s support for a divided Cyprus and its consequent refusal to recognise the Greek Cypriot government in Nicosia, have also been used to impede Turkey’s candidature. This became more pronounced after the referendums on the draft EU constitution in France and Netherlands in mid-2005, which led many European politicians to take a more cautious stand on Ankara’s membership, fearing a domestic backlash against them. Even Britain, which has been supportive of Turkey’s membership, appears to have lost some of its earlier enthusiasm for Ankara’s candidature.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s party rejects Turkish membership and favours, instead, granting a position of “privileged partnership” to Turkey. This is notwithstanding the fact that Germany remains Turkey’s most important economic contributor within the EU. Over three million German tourists visit Turkey each year. There are also an estimated 2.5 million Turks living in Germany today, of whom 600,000 have become German citizens, but their presence has only reinforced German antipathy towards Turkey. Sadly, even Cardinal Ratzinger, before he became the Pope, spoke out against Turkey’s membership.

It is, however, in France where opposition to Turkey has been most pronounced. True, President Chirac had offered his lukewarm support to Ankara’s candidature, but he became far more cautious after the French referendum. Chirac’s interior minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, who is also a likely presidential contender, has publicly opposed Turkey’s membership, proposing that accession talks be suspended and that the country work towards “privileged partnership”. Of no less significance is the growing appeal of the anti-Islamic far right, which has threatened public demonstrations against Turkey’s membership.

The former French president, Giscard d’Estaing, who was also president of the EU constitutional committee, had also spoken out against Turkey on the ground that it would threaten the Union’s character as a club of Christian states. More recently, the French parliament has taken the unprecedented step of accusing Turkey of “genocide” against the Armenians some 90 years ago. Ironically, the public urgings of the Bush administration in favour of Turkey’s candidature made the situation only worse for Ankara as many began to view the issue in terms of US-EU rivalry.

In the light of these developments, it was no surprise when on November 8, the EU commission presented a report on Turkey that found fault on many fronts, including in areas such as freedom of speech and religious beliefs, women’s rights, trade union rights, minority rights, Cyprus and human rights violations. It also called upon Turkey to fight corruption, which it alleged “remains widespread in the Turkish public sector and judiciary”, while criticising the military’s “continued significant political influence”. But it avoided recommending suspension of accession talks; calling instead for close monitoring of developments and fresh recommendations to the European Union Council on December 14.

Not surprisingly, the commission’s report was not well received in Ankara, adding to the growing tension between the two sides. While Ankara has avoided saying anything that would inflame sentiments at home, or provide fresh ammunition to its critics abroad, political figures have warned that “if the EU turns its back on Turkey, it is the West that will be the big loser”. Mehmet Dolger, a member of the ruling Justice and Development Party, pointed out that if the EU persists in its current policy “the West would risk losing a vital bridge with the Islamic world at a time when having this bridge is more important than ever”.

There is of course great validity to the view that the EU’s negative attitude will intensify an anti-Europe backlash in Turkey and also play into the hands of Islamists, some of whom have called upon the Erdogan government to reject Europe, before Europe rejects Turkey. Instead of appreciating the many initiatives taken by Ankara to demonstrate its respect for the Union’s views, European politicians accuse the Turkish government of “backsliding” and of “bad faith”. Joost Lagendjik, the co-chairman of the Turkey-Europe joint parliamentary commission, even warned publicly that “patience with Turkey is running out”.

These contrasting positions have led analysts to fear that Turkey may be irrevocably drifting away from Europe. The consequences of such a development would be far-reaching and damaging to both sides. Turkey is not only a huge country straddling the continents of Europe and Asia, it borders Iran, Iraq and Syria, the three countries of immediate and serious concern to the West. Europe’s claim to want to live in peace and harmony with the East would be questioned if Turkey were to turn its back on Europe, as a reaction to the latter’s hostility. Even the likelihood of the integration of 12 million Muslims, currently living in Europe, would be seriously jeopardised.

Europe’s short-sighted policy on Turkey is adding to the growing negative perception of the EU in Turkey. Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan feels himself to be in an unenviable situation, caught between the need to join the EU and the desire to assure his supporters that he is not compromising on the party’s core beliefs.

His mild criticism of the recent events in Lebanon and Palestine upset some EU capitals which accused him of promoting “Muslim solidarity and consciousness”, but the Islamists characterised his statements as much too mild.

The sad truth is that Turkey has few options. The government recognises that economic requirements make it imperative that Turkey join the EU. Moreover, the Turkish military and the country’s elite also remain strongly committed to the principle of secularism, and favour forging new bonds with the West. The Turks are proud of their Nato membership, and desirous of anchoring their country to mainland Europe. Erdogan’s statements and public posturing are directed at keeping his core supporters satisfied. He is, however, far too intelligent and pragmatic, not to appreciate that he really has no other viable alternative.

Turkey cannot link itself too closely with the Middle East where it is still seen as the former colonial power and, therefore, viewed with suspicion.

Some scholars have suggested that Turkey should develop strategic linkages with emerging economic giants such as Russia, India and China, but this is more of a hope than the reality, because Turkey’s psychological, emotional and, more importantly, economic needs can only be met by Europe. But the European Union too must recognise that there is a limit beyond which the Turks, proud and dignified people that they are, will not tolerate unending humiliation.

The writer is a former ambassador.

Sonia & Natwar: who betrayed whom?

BY chance, I saw Sonia Gandhi’s interview on a TV channel the other day. Her performance was impressive. She did not hedge any question and she was forthright in her replies. She came across as an honest person. I could see the pain on her face when she said that Natwar Singh, a lifelong associate, had betrayed her. She would not have said so had she not felt that way.

That she used to have implicit confidence in him is a fact. I recall that I wrote to her twice when I was a member of the Rajya Sabha. Both times Natwar Singh talked to me on her behalf because she had passed on the letters to him. The subject was not important, but the manner in which Natwar Singh disposed of my pleas to Sonia Gandhi indicated the equation he enjoyed with the Congress president.

Against this firm relationship, her feeling of betrayal was natural when she found that Natwar Singh was involved in the United Nations oil-for-food scam in Iraq. While indicating this during the interview, I could see her face showing anguish, not anger. She could not probably imagine that a person who was so close to herself and her husband, Rajiv Gandhi, would enter into an oil deal without explaining to her what he was doing.

After all, Natwar Singh’s credentials were that of a Congress leader. There was no other reason for Iraq to treat him with deference.

Instead of assuaging her doubts, Natwar Singh went off on a tangent. He objects to her use of the word “betrayal”, especially when he is 15 years older to Sonia Gandhi. He says: “Those who are born on Indian soil will understand the country’s ethos and culture. Others will not.” Natwar Singh sounds like a member of the BJP which went to the polls on the plank that Sonia Gandhi was a foreigner. (The party lost in the elections).

For him to suggest that Sonia Gandhi will not understand India’s ethos because she was not born in the country is to betray his ignorance about India’s characteristics and spirit and her life after marrying Rajiv Gandhi. Natwar Singh’s remark must have been the unkindest cut for her because he was part of the family.

Coming to the word, betrayal means violation of trust or confidence. What else did Natwar Singh do? Using the name of the Congress, he entered into oil deals. She, in fact, was soft towards him. Anyone else in her place would have been harsher because Natwar Singh exploited the name of the Congress party which she heads.

Why does Natwar Singh lose his temper with the Congress leaders? They could not have condoned the indictment by the Pathak Commission on Volcker’s oil scam report. If Sonia Gandhi had not been generous, she would have named Natwar Singh’s son, Jagat Singh, as being in the centre of the scam. She only talked about Natwar Singh’s betrayal. He should thank his stars that he got off lightly. And he has not yet been expelled from the Congress party like his son.

I can think of another equation which did not break on the point of scam, but was a betrayal of sorts. I am referring to the exit of yet another former foreign minister, Dinesh Singh, from the Congress during Mrs Indira Gandhi’s time. He too was close to her, in fact, part of her kitchen cabinet. She defied the Congress high command, the old guard, with the help of people like Dinesh Singh. When the Congress split in 1969, he was part of the demolition brigade. Then he bolted to join the Janata. What loyalty.

Dinesh Singh was another wheeler dealer. He used Mrs Indira Gandhi and left her and the Congress when both were in the dumps after the Emergency. I recall that whenever he invited editors or senior journalists for a meal, he would have instructed his stenographers to come to the room and interrupt discussions on the plea that Mrs Gandhi was on the phone. He would do so to underline his importance. He was dropped from the cabinet because of his antics.

But one thing that goes in his favour is that Dinesh Singh did not run down Mrs Gandhi in public. He would say many things against her in private but nothing for publication. Natwar Singh has behaved as if he has dropped Sonia Gandhi and not the other way round. This happens — it is still happening — when political parties pick up bureaucrats and appoint them as ministers. (Natwar Singh is from the Indian foreign service). They do not have the required grounding in politics and lack the necessary temperament. Manmohan Singh is an exception.

The problem with political parties in India is that they have not learnt to differentiate between a ‘durbari’ and a supporter. Natwar Singh, like Dinesh Singh, was a durbari, although he gave the impression of being another Nehru in the field of foreign affairs. Sonia Gandhi has rightly felt betrayed. But the crowd she has collected around her is primarily that of the Natwar Singh type. She will discover sooner than later that someone else in her camp has played her false. She should have learnt how to assess a person.

But then, this love for sycophants goes back to the days of Nehru. Although he kept aloof, he could not escape people like M.O. Mathai who betrayed him. One cannot say anything against R.K. Dhawan, Mrs Indira Gandhi’s special secretary. He did not open his mouth against the dynasty. He was promised many things during the Janata rule. But his reply was that he was willing to tell things about anybody except Mrs Indira Gandhi and her son, Sanjay Gandhi. Dhawan probably thinks that this is the “country’s ethos and culture.” Natwar Singh should have learnt from him. Dhawan is several years younger to him. I have brought in age because Natwar Singh said that Sonia Gandhi should not have used the word “betrayal” since she was 15 years younger to him.

The question is not that of age. The culture in South Asian countries is that of “ji hazoori” (obedience). Rulers like this because the answer is “yes” even before the sycophant crowd around them is asked. It is for the rulers to see through them. But then, the former feel so insecure that they look for props which paint rosy pictures of their popularity. Dinesh Singh and Natwar Singh were no different as long as they were in the durbar. They tumbled down in the party, not only because they were found out but also because their betrayal came to be known.

The writer is a leading columnist based in New Delhi.

Open campuses

WHEN it comes to attracting the best minds to America’s universities and colleges, geography should not matter. So it is welcome news that after two years of decline, students from foreign countries are steadily coming back to US college campuses. It’s a trend that should be encouraged even more.

Foreign student enrolment was among the casualties of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Concerns about homeland security and new restrictions on student visas resulted in long, unpredictable waits for entry into the United States. Students from other countries, believing America no longer welcomed them, went elsewhere. In the 2005-06 school year, though, according to a survey released on Monday by the Institute of International Education, the number held steady at 564,766, and new enrolments were up by about eight per cent. Credit goes to the State Department, which made foreign students a priority, adding workers to streamline the visa process and starting new recruiting and scholarship programmes. Credit also goes to the educational institutions that put new energy into recruitment efforts.

This is a world of increasing competition and collaboration, and immeasurable good is achieved when barriers are torn down. Some of the students who come here today will lead their countries tomorrow, and even those who won’t be leaders will leave with a better understanding and appreciation of America. While they are here, they make important contributions, such as teaching this country something about its international neighbours as well as helping the local economy.

Consider, for instance, that the 7,600 international students in Washington end up pumping more dollars into the region than, say, the Washington Redskins.

Any doubt about the benefits of attracting foreign students should be erased when weighed against the fact that other countries have started their own programmes to aggressively recruit these same smart students. This week a delegation of college presidents, led by education and State Department officials, is in Asia on a mission to recruit foreign scholars. America can’t afford not to put out the welcome mat.

— The Washington Post