Turkey’s EU prospects

GIVEN the hard entry negotiations that are likely to delay Turkey’s membership of the EU, one should not be surprised if the number of Turkish enthusiasts for entry into the European Union has gone down from 70 to 55 per cent. The start of the entry negotiations was overly late from Ankara’s point of view, for Turkey became an associate member of what then was the European Community in 1963 and joined the Customs Union in 1996. But entry negotiations for a full membership dragged on for a long period, until the EU decided last October to finally go ahead with it. Chances are that it is going to be a long process, and by the time Turkey becomes a member, many European states which applied much later and were once part of the Warsaw Pact — like Bulgaria, Romania and some Baltic states — would have become full members.

Turkey’s entry negotiations were delayed because Ankara did not come up to what is called the Copenhagen criteria. These related to human rights and democratic freedoms. What the EU was concerned about was the treatment of the Kurdish minority, the role the army had in politics through the National Security Council, and legal reforms, including the abolition of the death penalty, besides Ankara’s non-recognition of Greek Cyprus. The EU also wants Turkey to drop its opposition to Nato’s expansion, because Nicosia wants to join it. Over the decade, successive Turkish governments have taken a number of steps to satisfy the EU on these grounds. The reforms include recognition of the Kurdish minority’s cultural rights, turning the NSC into an advisory body, the abolition of the death penalty and other steps. However, in spite of these reforms, many European governments and the media have serious reservations about Turkey’s membership. The latest row between the EU and Turkey concerns Orhan Pamuk, whose novel has become a best-seller but which Ankara considers offensive to “Turkishness”. He is being tried under Article 301 of the penal court, and the EU wants Ankara to repeal it.

While these issues no doubt matter to Brussels, the real reason seems to be Turkey’s Muslim character. Even some of the most enlightened sections in Europe do not approve of a Muslim country becoming part of Europe. Politicians have uttered such nonsense as saying that those who died defending Vienna against the Ottomans will have died in vain if Turkey joins the EU. With a population of 72 million, Turkey is behind Germany demographically. But given its higher birth rate, Turkey could overtake Germany in about a decade’s time and become the EU’s biggest country both territorially and demographically. Most Europeans, Germans especially, fear that the EU membership could mean a new wave of Turkish immigrants.

Britain and Italy, motivated by fear of a Franco-German domination of Europe, have understandably been supportive of Turkey’s bid. But from a global perspective a Turkish membership should advance the cause of Christian-Muslim understanding. Given its history and geography, Turkey is eminently qualified to serve as a bridge between the West and the Islamic world. Surprisingly, the move to get Turkey into the EU has been made by an Islamic party, which swept the elections and gave Turkey political stability, made it Europe’s fastest-growing economy and has undertaken vital reforms. A full membership will thus help Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan’s party in the next elections and consolidate secular and progressive forces in Turkey.

Things are still messy

IT only seems appropriate to examine the progress made in the quake-hit areas as three months have now passed since many of the northern areas of the country were devastated on October 8. As was feared, the harsh winter has caused many of the victims to fall prey to various illnesses, some life-threatening. Heavy snowfall has also hampered relief operations to such an extent that Friday saw flocks of desperate people storm two UN helicopters in Azad Kashmir in a bid to escape the freezing temperatures. There are areas that are still virtually inaccessible so that it is difficult to estimate how many people need assistance. It is, however, safe to assume that thousands are not getting the attention they urgently need. Many of the problems that surfaced at the initial stage of relief and rescue operations are still there — lack of sanitation in camps and tent villages, illnesses that can trigger epidemics and inadequate winterized shelters continue to pose problems for those in charge. Many analysts’ fears regarding the delivery of promised donations — also echoed by the federal relief commissioner during his meeting with the APHC delegation — have come true. The earthquake killed nearly 80,000 people but it would be tragic if more lives were lost on account of the government’s inability to secure funds or the inefficiency of relief agencies

It is still too soon to fully ascertain whether the military and civilian administrations have learnt from the disaster. A few organizations have been set up but one can’t comment on their workings just as yet — except to hope that promises made regarding any organization’s performance are kept. This is particularly important given that the country’s reputation of being corrupt has worked against it. The government can remove this perception by focussing its efforts solely on sheltering and rehabilitating the victims and rebuilding their homes and infrastructure. The relief goods continue to come in, hospitals are functioning and volunteers still going up to help — signs that the nation can overcome all challenges.

VIP movement and traffic

ONE wonders who is to blame for the traffic chaos created by frequent VIP movement on Karachi’s roads. Does one hold the traffic authorities responsible for not coming up with a methodical traffic plan in each case to ease congestion by providing alternative routes for commuters and making this plan known to the public well in advance? Or are government functionaries to be blamed for travelling in huge cavalcades that whiz past a long queue of waiting cars, buses and taxis? Much has been written in the press about this problem, and newspapers often publish letters from irate citizens describing their agony on the roads. Yet, the government has turned a deaf ear to such protests and has taken no action to alleviate the commuters’ suffering. On Friday, things took a particularly bad turn when two heart patients being rushed to hospital were held up in a monstrous traffic snarl as a result of the closure of some roads to allow for VIP movement. Tragically, both were pronounced dead on arrival.

It is puzzling how VIP meetings and functions can be allowed to take precedence over emergencies of this sort. This is unheard of in any civilized country where there are restrictions on the type of VIP movement witnessed here. In order to avoid tragedies like these it is important to plan VIP movements in the city more thoughtfully and imaginatively. For instance, the timing and the travel routes of the president or prime minister in the city can be so planned as to involve least inconvenience and delays for the commuters. Similarly, in working out a traffic management plan, the police should put the priorities of the commuters above those of VIP functionaries. Above all, ambulances must be allowed to reach their destinations, even if this means opening up roads that have been temporarily closed to ordinary traffic.

Significance of the OIC summit

THE usual diversity of assessments has followed the Third Extraordinary Summit of OIC held at Makkatul Mukarrama on December 7-8 2005. Some estimable Foreign Office veterans have joined those who have virtually called it an exercise in futility.

In judging the outcome of the latest summit, we have to recall that it was a follow-up of the tenth summit held in Malaysia, at which a resolution was adopted, at the initiative of President Musharraf to create a group of eminent persons, to make recommendations on the challenges confronting the Ummah following the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

One was to correct the image of the Islamic world whose tendency to resort to terrorism was being blamed on the rise of fundamentalism and extremism among the followers of a faith that had fought the Christian world since its inception. The essential message of moderation, and peace propounded by Islam was being ignored to justify resort to violence and preemption, whereas the problem lay in political and economic injustice that the Islamic countries were facing as a part of the developing world.

The other was to reform and revitalize the OIC, which had been unable to perform its functions on account of the lack of political will among its member-states.

The 15-member group of eminent persons held meetings in 2004 and 2005, and following the second meeting in Islamabad in May 2005, made concrete recommendations that were endorsed by the Islamic foreign ministers meeting in Sanaa, Yemen, in June 2005. The main agenda of the special summit at Makkah was to deliberate on these recommendations, in the context of the current situation in which the US was relying on its doctrine of pre-emption, and the root causes of terrorism which were not being addressed.

At the same time, sectarian differences were not only persisting in the Muslim world, but were being exploited to sow the seeds of violence and discord. The fault had to be shared by the dominant West, which was not playing its role to address the root causes of terrorism. These consisted of political disputes, such as Palestine and Kashmir and economic issues of poverty and deprivation in the poor countries, both of which were driving the masses to extreme measures.

The host of the memorable conclave, King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz of Saudi Arabia, with the backing of leaders of 57 member countries, decided to give the deliberations much greater significance, by going beyond short-term challenges and tackling issues that were at the root of disunity and internal conflicts among the 1.3 billion followers of Islam. The Makkah declaration not only highlighted the rejection of extremism and terrorism by the Muslim world, to improve the image of Islam, but also reflected a consensus in favour of giving equal status to all schools of Islamic faith (fiqh) to accord legitimacy and mutual acceptance to all those professing the uniqueness of Allah, and the finality of the Prophet (PBUH).

The Makkah declaration is an inward-looking document that seeks to highlight the need for reform, and unity. It stresses the universality of Islamic values, and favours dialogue between civilizations. The summit also issued a joint communique that laid down the framework of a 10-year programme of action, that would confer benefits on all Muslims, by stressing education, the optimal use of resources, and encouraging trade to the point where even an Islamic Free Trade Area might become feasible. The OIC would be given a new charter, and name, to be approved at the next regular summit. The OIC secretariat would be expanded, and new sections would be created, and the powers of the secretary- general augmented.

The deliberations of the summit focused on projecting a better image of Islam, by revising educational curricula to stress moderation and research in science and technology. It was agreed to establish an institution to protect human rights guaranteed by Islam, and to counter hostile propaganda in order to safeguard the honour and dignity of Muslims. The summit upheld the rights of Muslims in Palestine and Kashmir, calling for a settlement based on UN resolutions. The withdrawal of Israeli forces from all Arab territories occupied in 1967 was demanded.

The OIC secretary general, Ekmeliddin Ihsanoglu, stressed in his statement, “We do not have the luxury of blaming others for our own problems. It is high time we addressed our national and regional problems with courage, sincerity and openness.” Mr Ihsanoglu has shown readiness to take tough decisions in order to make the secretariat more effective, especially by collecting membership dues from all member-states, and seeking implementation of decisions by them. The publicity and information set-up of the organization has been strengthened and the role of private or state-owned media encouraged.

President Pervez Musharraf, who had initiated the idea of the group of eminent persons, and of projecting an image of “enlightened moderation” played a major role, together with Saudi King Abdullah, and Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi, to ensure that the summit would strengthen Islamic unity, and reinforce the role of the OIC. He called upon the participating leaders to work for an Islamic renaissance. He urged mandatory contributions by member states for a fund to promote science and technology.

Addressing a press conference, President Musharraf called the Makkah summit a “turning point” in the history of the OIC. He stressed the need for making the OIC more effective by strengthening the secretariat. For this purpose, he suggested the creation of new departments, such as those dealing with peace and security, trade and investment, economic and technical assistance, interfaith dialogue and Islamic thought.

So far as the significance of the summit is concerned, it has taken landmark decisions, ranging from the recognition of equality of all schools of Islamic worship, promotion of a moderate image of Islam, to a considerable strengthening of the structure and effectiveness of the OIC. Ultimately, how well all its recommendations will be implemented will depend on the political will of the member states, many of whose leader may not be ready for the reforms and guidelines agreed upon.

Taking into account the past record, the scepticism being voiced about the likely impact of the summit may be justified. However, its deliberations and decisions have shown full realization of the challenges being faced by the Islamic world in the 21st century. The results of the summit should be seen as significant and constructive, both by the western world that is confronting manifestations of terror and extremism, as well as by the Muslim world that needs to project a positive image, and to win recognition of its grievances. Cynicism or doubts about the outcome will not help anyone. A resolve to revitalize the world of Islam will facilitate the renaissance all Muslims desire.

The forgotten power

PRESIDENT BUSH is a big fan of presidential power — from warrantless wiretapping to conduct just short of torture to locking up American citizens without charge or trial. But there are some powers of his office that this president likes to ignore. He still has not exercised his veto, for example. And he prefers to forget that Article II of the Constitution gives him the “Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States.” Mr Bush, who famously proclaims himself a “compassionate conservative,” has shown mercy fewer times than any president in recent history (though he has granted more pardons than President Bill Clinton had at the comparable point in his presidency).

He has granted clemency less than a fifth the number of times of presidents Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan or Gerald Ford, who served not even a full term in office. His record on the subject is dismal.

In December Mr Bush issued 11 pardons, bringing his total to 71 pardons and sentence commutations. The recent actions follow his usual pattern. All involved old crimes; the most recent conviction is a decade old, and one happened way back in 1950. Most involved minor offences — a bank robbery from 1964 being a notable exception. None required the president to take a stand of any kind. They involved, rather, no political risk.

All of which is a far cry from the manner in which the Framers of the Constitution envisioned the power. Alexander Hamilton, that champion of the executive branch, emphasized that the “benign prerogative of pardoning should be as little as possible fettered or embarrassed.”

Why? Because “the criminal code of every country partakes so much of necessary severity, that without an easy access to exceptions in favour of unfortunate guilt, justice would wear a countenance too sanguinary and cruel.” His words were prophetic. For little could Mr. Hamilton have imagined a federal prison population measured in the hundreds of thousands or the ferocious drug sentencing regimes that have driven its growth.

We don’t doubt the value of pardons to those who receive them. But the power of mercy should be grander. Is there no person in prison Mr. Bush believes to be innocent or, short of that, sentenced too harshly? Is there no one convicted under a law the president regards as unjust or misapplied?

—The Washington Post