Washington Times editorial whitewashes Turkey
Greek-Americans and Cypriots in the United States were outraged by an editorial in The Washington Times earlier this month which praised Turkey as a valuable and faithful US ally and criticised the European Union at the same time for snubbing Turkey by "conspicuously" excluding it from the list of 10 new members.
It declared that Turkey's "imperfect human rights record" does not justify its rejection.
It supports the official Washington policy of consistent strong support for Turkey for the sake of US "national interests", without taking into account any of Turkey's grave faults which fully justify its rejection by the EU.
Marina Parisinou, The Cyprus Weekly's correspondent in the United States, fired a letter to The Washington Times criticising the whitewash of Turkey in the newspaper's editorial and the consequent misleading of its readers of the true situation in Turkey.
For the sake of our readers we publish both the editorial and Parisinou's response.
The Washington Times
(Oct 12, 2002)
Turkey: our most underappreciated ally
For more than two decades, Turkey has been working to qualify for membership in the European Union. Apparently, the 15 EU member-nations think Turkey hasn't made the grade, because in announcing its plan to admit 10 new members within the next two years, the European Union conspicuously left Turkey off the list. Two questions must be asked. First, what is behind the European Union's rejection of the only Muslim member of NATO? Second, what is the effect of the union's continued rejection of Turkey on NATO?
Europe's pronouncement based the latest snub on Turkey's human-rights record, but that appears to be more an excuse than a reason. Greece, an EU member and longtime adversary of Turkey over control of Cyprus, may have reheated that conflict through EU action. Turkey invaded Cyprus in 1974, reacting to a Greek-Cypriot military coup aimed at uniting the island with Greece. Now, the European Union included Cyprus (meaning the Greek-Cypriot government) among the nations to be admitted in 2004. America has no direct interest in which nations belong to the union, but to the extent that that affects Turkey's role as a military ally, our interests are definitely in play. U.S. advocacy of Turkish membership in the union has apparently fallen on the same deaf European ears as other American military concerns have.
Rising tensions between the United States and Europe result from policy battles affecting NATO directly and threatening its future as a military alliance. A few years ago, the union announced it would form its own military force, intended to be independent from NATO and from American influence. Though skeptical, we encouraged Europe to do this in order to encourage EU nations to invest more in their own defense. The EU force de frappe has not materialized, because that investment still is not being made. In the recent battle over the International Criminal Court (ICC), President Bush demanded immunity from ICC prosecution for all American soldiers and officials. Europe backed down, but only after several heated exchanges and a presidential threat to veto U.N. peacekeeping missions if immunity were not granted. The EU rejection of Turkey seems to be made without concern for that nation's value as a military ally.
Turkey's troubled economy and imperfect human rights record are insufficient to justify this rejection. Turkey retains its position as our most underappreciated ally. Turkey's support in the war on terror is important, both symbolically and substantively. As our most prominent Muslim ally, it serves as proof that we are fighting a war on terror, not on Islam. Turkey's strategic location on Iraq's northern border makes it a key to our success in the coming campaign. Moreover, Turkey is now taking over the military peacekeeping task in Afghanistan, freeing up American troops for other duties. American interests would be well-served by EU acceptance of Turkey. In its absence, the president should consider how we can lower trade barriers with Turkey and otherwise strengthen our economic relationship with an ally that is usually more faithful than many others.
Letter of reply:
(Oct 17, 2002)
You try to mislead readers
Dear Sir -
I'd like to refer to your editorial of Oct 12, entitled "Turkey: our most underappreciated ally", and point out that by omitting to mention certain facts and by misstating others, you may have misled those of your readers who are not familiar with the workings of the European Union, nor the Cyprus issue.
1. The report issued by the European Commission on October 9 represents the Commission's recommendations rather than a decision. The final decision on the enlargement will be made by member-states in mid-December.
2. Turkey did not expect to be on the list of countries to be admitted in the EU as new members in the next two years. What it was hoping for and did not get was a start date for the negotiation process which will then lead to accession, a process expected to take several years.
3. The Commission's "latest snub", as you put it, consisted of a) a recognition that progress has been made, and b) a recommendation that "the European Union should enhance its support for Turkey's pre-accession preparations". The report also suggested that "increased financial assistance should be provided".
4. Before a candidate country can begin accession negotiations, it must first fulfill a number of pre-defined criteria, known as the Copenhagen criteria. Turkey's failure to meet the first of the Copenhagen criteria, namely to "be a stable democracy, respecting human rights, the rule of law, and the protection of minorities" is what stands in its way of being given a start date for negotiations. Turkey's "imperfect human rights record" may be a factor that the US is willing to overlook when choosing its allies in the world community, but it is important for the European Union when choosing its partners.
The 10 countries on the list - as well as Bulgaria and Romania who have been in negotiations but did not make the list and are expected to join in about 2007 - had to meet those criteria. Why should Turkey be treated differently?
It is interesting that one of the most frequent arguments made by the Bush administration to justify a unilateral strike on Iraq is the mistreatment of the Kurds, yet Turkey's oppression and mistreatment of its own Kurdish minority is overlooked.
5. Regarding Cyprus, as I am sure you are aware of, the 1974 coup, staged by the Geek junta and "aimed at uniting the island with Greece", lasted for all of eight days, and precipitated the restoration of democracy in Greece. Regardless, Turkey, using that as "an excuse rather than a reason", continued its invasion of Cyprus, conducting a second phase several weeks later, eventually capturing about 37% of the island which it holds to this day and where it keeps 35,000 troops.
Cyprus applied for EU membership in 1990 and began negotiations in 1998. In 1993, the Commission concluded that the application was made in the name of the whole island.
Have you considered that Greece "may have reheated that conflict through EU action" because the dozens of resolutions, adopted by the UN Security Council and General Assembly since the Turkish invasion, calling for the withdrawal of Turkish troops, have so far fallen on deaf ears, including those of the US government? It is hardly surprising that the US is now finding the UN lacking in effectiveness! What is surprising, however, is its impatience with Iraq for not abiding with UN resolutions. Some of the US's closest allies, namely Turkey and Israel, have been flouting UN resolutions for many years....
Given how much Turkey has been allowed to get away with for so long, maybe it is not so underappreciated after all.