Nobel Prize winner Martti Ahtisaari on Turkey's EU bid

Wed, 09/23/2009 - 1:08pm

Former Finnish president and Nobel Peace Prize winner Martti Oiva Kalevi Ahtisaari has been hugely influential on a number of international issues during his storied, multi-decade diplomatic career. He helped secure independence for Namibia, inspected weapons of the Irish Republican Army, led peace negotiations between the Free Aceh Movement and the government of Indonesia, helped to secure an end to the Bosnian war, and served as U.N. Special Envoy for the Kosovo status process.

Ahtisaari's latest cause is working toward the accession of Turkey to the European Union. He led the Independent Commission on Turkey, which issued its latest report on Sept. 7, entitled "Breaking the Vicious Circle," and is embarking on a whirlwind tour of European capitals to promote the Turkey-EU agenda.

Ahtisaari will speak at the Brookings Institution later this afternoon about the report and his views on EU enlargement, but he sat down with The Cable for an exclusive interview to talk about the way forward for Turkey and the EU. Here are some excerpts:

The Cable: What is your main message to European leaders when discussing this report?

Martti Ahtisaari: We are not asking for any special favors, we are asking for Turkey to be treated in the same fashion that my country was treated when we applied for membership. We are convinced that Turkey would be a useful member of the European Union. Being a member of every other EU and transatlantic organization, we see that they would play an important role in the EU context as well. ... If we don't start negotiations then we are treating Turkey different. It's our credibility that's at stake.

We say two things basically: Let's move all the chapters, no blockage of any of the chapters [of the negotiation process]. And secondly, please don't talk of anything else except of full membership, at the moment. In the end, you have a national decision-making process where the parliaments have to approve, so let's move forward. And it will take such a long time that some of the people who have been most vocally critical may not be in office anymore.

TC: What is your main criticism of the EU member states regarding this issue?

MA: We don't treat Turkey as we are treating other applicant countries. And that is something we want to point out very candidly and say that this is no good for the EU because it undermines the EU as a reliable partner. We don't want to forecast what the outcome of the negotiations is, but we ask to be fair to Turkey.

TC: Where has Turkey fallen short on its side of the bargain?

MA: Turkey was very active with reforms up until 2005; there were a lot of political things that we were predicting. ... They have to start getting out the reforms. The constitution is still not reformed to the extent we would hope, some offenses took place, and major reform is still pending.

TC: What do you think about the feeling that there is an anti-Muslim, anti-immigration bias inherent in the opposition to Turkey's membership?

MA: We may be suffering in some cases by the fact that in Europe we have not been terribly good at integrating immigrants who have come to our countries. ... Look, I don't think that we will see Turks flooding into Europe, because Turkey has had economic growth (except last year) of 7 percent. Private investment has favored Turkey well and Turkish firms can help European countries in the whole region. I don't think the people will leave if they have opportunities at home.

There's no need to utilize Turkey as an excuse for other ills in a society. If one has problems with immigrant communities in Europe, that should not be used against Turkey.

TC: How does the frozen conflict in Cyprus factor into the Turkey-EU accession issue?

MA: It's not that it would prevent Turkey from becoming a member state. I'm more concerned that it undermines the credibility of the EU as a world player, if we can't even solve our problems on our own continent. The mere fact that there's going to be elections next year on the Turkish-Cypriot side means that we should use this opportunity because different personalities may emerge in those elections and that may complicate matters further.

TC: What should or could the United States government do to help advance Turkey's EU membership?

MA: They can help by not saying too much. The position of the U.S. has always been clear, no matter what administration we have here: The U.S. will welcome Turkey's accession to the European Union. That quiet support is perhaps the most effective way, not getting in the middle. Because you may start hearing reactions in Europe, where people say [of the U.S.], 'they're selling their neighbor's house.'

TC: Are you concerned about Turkey's relationships with adversaries such as Syria and Iran?

MA: I would regard that as a benefit, because I firmly believe that we have to have a dialogue. I'm concerned when certain movements or countries have been isolated from the international dialogue, because then you have no way of influencing them. No countries policies are eternal; they do vary. People are growing old and a new generation is coming to power. In a year's time, a government can look different. You can't influence them if you don't talk to them.

Josh Rogin | Permalink | | Comments? Login or register
( filed under: )


Advertisement

 

ABSURD

by AllanGreen on Thu, 09/24/2009 - 6:13am

It would be interesting to know Mr. Ahtisaari why you advanced to the positions of prominence you have held? Could it just be because you are a stooge of certain political factions, bent on destroying American power by undermining Europe, and isolating America in the long term?

You know damn well what Turkey in the EU means, a non-EU country, destroying the very heart of the EU project, and making Europe all but useless to future American power. If you think this appears intelligence for US foreign policy - think again. A handicapped EU may attract certain hawks in Washington, but long-term, it exposes America to geopolitical weakness.

What part of EU do you fail to understand? You speak of "your" country. Well, if it really is yours, why do you sound unfamiliar with a map?

Looked at a map recently?

Your country is 100% geographically located in Europe.

Where is 99% of Turkey located?

Where is 99% of its population located?

What makes Turkey any more European than say Morocco, or Lebanon? Let's just extend membership of the EU, to everyone, shall we? Including the Belgian Congo and erstwhile Indochine!

What part of the Kurdistan conflict don't you understand? Or what part of the Kemalist tradition do you think has relevance to Modern democracy? What part of the statement of the EUropean Supreme Court on Sharia being incompatible with Democracy, did you not get?

Turkey is about ten times more anti-Semitic than the average European country. It doesn't protect basic democratic rights of its citizens. Death squads rule the east, and even questioning the role of Talat Pasha in the Genocide, is illegal. Turkey has border disputes with Syria, with Greece, with Iraq, trouble with its own Allawites - so WHO ARE YOU Mr. Ahtisaari, and WHAT is your COUNTRY? And whose interests are you defending and serving?

Maybe your love affair with Turkey expalains your contempt for democracy - the vast majority of public opinion in EU countries being solidly against Turkey in the EU...dare I mention most Americans also, believe this to be a preposterous geographic solecism.

And save the Islamophobia card for yourself. A religion which deliberately inspires fear can not rationally instill any other possible reaction.

Your boss, is CHEVRON corporation buddy, and if CHEVRON were a little more interested in long-term viability than short-term profit, it would understand that an isolated American in 20 years, means chunks of Chevron will be auctioned off to the Turks and Gambians by 2050.

Good luck, hypocrites.

Firstly: "What makes Turkey

by kanadikirik on Sat, 10/10/2009 - 9:05am

Firstly:

"What makes Turkey any more European than say Morocco, or Lebanon? Let's just extend membership of the EU, to everyone, shall we? Including the Belgian Congo and erstwhile Indochine!"

I have known that history classes at schools are generally boring for the students in any country. So, the people don't try to improve own themself on that after graduation, if they are not proffessional as historians. If they did it, they wouldn't say this kind of unfortunate words. Anybody who is interested in historical background of EU and Turkey can easly know that this kind of matching of Turkey and Morocco or Lebanon, or any other countries makes complately non-sense. What is the historical background of the relationship between Morocco and basis of EU? Or wasn't Lebanon depending on Ottoman Empire as an Middle East part of it, just like lots of countries currently members of EU in Europe part? Has Belgian Congo had any influence on the form of Europe like Ottoman and Rusia?
Idea of EU was begun to discuss deeply in almost 17.century and a lot of philosophers, politicians, popes have attended into that along of whole history until now. That discussion about Turkey and Rusia has begun in early 17.century, I mean if Ottoman and Rusia was going to be a member of this Europen Society planed or not. Some parts of this debaters have sopported their participation, but especially Popes' side hasn't been in tendency to do that because of religional reasons.
Now i want to learn, where was Morocco, Lubanon or Belgian Congo in this historical discussion of EU, lasted 400 years?
If they were also in a relationship like that, yes we can talk about extending of the borders of EU to them. But there is no history like that, so there is no reason for duscussing it, so this ignorantly claim is just non-sense.

And now:

“What part of the Kurdistan conflict don't you understand? Or what part of the Kemalist tradition do you think has relevance to Modern democracy? What part of the statement of the EUropean Supreme Court on Sharia being incompatible with Democracy, did you not get?”

When i read this paraghraph, I had previously been tolerant at the points of Kurdish Conflict and Kemalist problem, because any foreigners may not know the current situation of this topics. For example, the communication problem between Kurdish side and Turkish governments has been almost solved, there is a Kurdish party at the parlament, a Kurdish state chanell, newspapers, Kurdish hits in entertainments people admire etc. And it has never been understood from outside that conflicts between civic people of Kurdishes and Turkishes have rarely occured, and they have been condemned by both side, because people are living together as neighbours, couples, friends here. Or Kemalist tradition of course has had some problems with modern democracy, but the problem has belonged to Turkish traditional bureaucracy like military which had been formalized in patrimonial principles come from Roman Empire; but today there is no effection of military or other bureaucrats remained on politics of Turkey. As I said at the begining, I could tolerate these points, because they are detailed and any foreigner, non-professional on the area, may not find out them exactly.
BUT WHAT A KIND OF IGNORANT CAN SUPPOSE THAT TURKEY HAS ANY TIE TO SHARIA!!!
It is shamed! So we understood that the writer above has never read anything about history of Turkey and he behaves with his hearsay pre-judice.

“Turkey is about ten times more anti-Semitic than the average European country. It doesn't protect basic democratic rights of its citizens.”

Firstly, yes we have had a fresh and stupid anti-Semitic attitudes last ten years; i also have heard lots of gossips about jews and I always belive as Adorno said “Anti-Semiticism is the gossip about Jews”, I mean the danger may start with only gossips. I also agree with the writers above, it must be overwhelmed soon. But another point claimed that Turkey doesn’t protect basic democratic rights of its citizen is not complateley right. I said complately because, yes we also have some unfortunate actions agains some persons before, but this cases are almost solved today. And it is not right especially for Jews. I won’t say anything about it and i will lead you to Jews’ organisations of the USA and Turkey. After asking them about it, you can think again to tell this claim again. But be careful, if you gossip about Turkishes they can laugh to you. Because Ottoman Empire saved their life from European genocides on them!

“Turkey has border disputes with Syria, with Greece, with Iraq, trouble with its own Allawites.”

If you had followed last developments here, you could know that Turkey and Syria has opened their borders for their citizens and there is no border dispute between them. And I have never known that we had have any border dispute with Iraq. Are you sure? Are you talking about Turkey? And Greece… We have just a continental shelf problem, but don’t worry, it can not go to battle. Turkey and Greece has maturity enough for solving it inside; they must.

And Armenian problem… Look at the last relations between Turkey and Armenia. Then we can talk about it again, because it looks like you learned something before and never improved them with fresh informations.

“Geographic Solecism”…

Yes, if you think yourself not as a human, but as a plant, yes it is complately true, if Turkish people Access to EU, it will be a Geographic Solecism. But human relations mostly depend on cultures and historical ties, as i wrote at the begining, at the part of history of background of EU and Turkey. I won’t repeat it. But i am going to ask, if your brother or sister was born in Asia, getting them into your identity registration is a Geographic Solecism? Please think the answer like you are a human.

Greetings from your historical brother, whether if you want.