View previous stories
	Historic EU Deal on Turkey by SBS News / The Observer   4.10.2005.   Historic EU Deal on Turkey. (SBS News)   The European Union has clinched an historic 11th-hour accord with Turkey to clear the way for landmark talks with the mainly Muslim state.   Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul called the accord a turning point in his country"s history.   British Foreign Minister Jack Straw hailed the breakthrough as a victory for all sides. "We are all winners: Europe, the existing (EU) member states, Turkey and the international community," said Mr Straw of the accord.   It was struck despite the fact that public opinion surveys show most Europeans against Ankara"s EU bid. "It"s going to be a long road ahead but I have no doubt that if bringing Turkey in is the prize, it is worth fighting," he said, speaking ahead of an expected formal launch of the talks later Monday night.   In Ankara the Turkish foreign minister, due in Luxembourg later Monday night, underlined the significance of the talks.   "We have come to a historic point today ... "What is important for us is that the prospect of full membership is very clear. There is no alternative such as a privileged partnership," Mr Gul said.   The talks have been blocked by Austrian demands that the EU offer Turkey something less than full membership as part of the so-called "negotiating framework" for the talks, which sets out their principles and logistics.   The breakthrough came after Mr Straw warned that failure would prove "catastrophic" for the bloc, still in turmoil following French and Dutch rejections of its first constitution in May and June.   It also came as UN warcrimes prosecutor Carla del Ponte said Croatia was fully cooperating with her, a key demand for Zagreb to start EU talks. There is widespread speculation that Croatia"s and Turkey"s EU bids are linked.   After four decades of knocking at Europe"s door, EU leaders meeting in December gave the Turkey a date of October 3 to start membership talks.   But Ankara"s recent insistence that it would still not recognise EU member state Cyprus, in a declaration attached to a customs agreement in July, created new strains just weeks before its long-awaited date. That issue was resolved last month.   But wrangling over the exact wording of the negotiating framework went right down to the wire, with Austria holding out for Turkey to be offered something less than full EU membership. In the event the text finally agreed conserves the original wording that "the shared objective of the negotiations is accession.”   But it adds: "While having full regard to all (EU political criteria), including the absorption capacity of the Union, if Turkey is not in a position to assume in full all the obligations of membership it must be ensured that Turkey is fully anchored in the European structures through the strongest possible bond."   The EU delay has angered Turkish politicians and the public alike. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, whose country has suffered through tough political, economic and social reform to join, had urged the EU to show good sense before the accord was struck. "If the EU wants to become a global power, if it aims to eliminate the conflict of civilizations, the concert of civilizations must be achieved," he said.   The EU has long underlined that the fact of starting membership negotiations does not guarantee that Turkey will actually join. In any case the talks are likely to take at least a decade, during which   Turkey will have to comply with a succession of "chapters," or EU policy areas, forcing it to meet EU standards.   In addition its eventual accession must be ratified by all current EU member states - including in some cases by referendum, giving countries including France an effective popular veto on Ankara"s bid.   October 1, 2005   "Failure of the talks would betray Turks and Europe, by Gaby Hinsliff. (The Observer)   The talks over Turkey"s historic attempt to join the European Union may not take place, an event that would dismay proponents of European enlargement.   Whitehall sources estimated the chances of the negotiations starting at only 50/50, with Austria insisting privately it is essential for Turkey to be offered only limited rights - a privileged partnership which the Turks will not accept - rather than full membership.   Douglas Alexander, the Europe minister, said if the talks failed it would be a betrayal of both the Turkish people"s hopes and of European enlargement.   However, he told The Observer: "There can be no certainty that agreement will be reached. We simply do not know whether agreement can be achieved.   "What we do know is that we will be working tirelessly ... to secure the agreement that we believe is right not just for Turkey but for Europe as a whole."   The crisis has highlighted deep hostility to Turkish immigration in several EU states. The former EU commissioner Chris Patten warned yesterday that member states must confront xenophobia about Turkey.   "To define Europe today as though it were an introverted, cohesive, medieval Christian community is, I think, terrible," Patten said. "It sends not only awful messages outside, but it actually sends some pretty dubious messages to the 12 million or more Muslims who live within the European Union."   But in an interview for BBC1"s The Politics Show to be broadcast today, the former French president Valery Giscard d"Estaing accuses Britain of being "out of touch" with European public opinion in pushing Turkey"s case.   A crisis meeting in Luxembourg today will attempt to rescue the talks. All 25 member states agreed last December that accession talks should begin this month, but Austria subsequently raised objections.   The failure of the negotiations would be a serious blow to Tony Blair"s British presidency of the EU. Ushering Turkey inside was one of three British priorities, alongside rescuing the European constitution, and agreeing a deal on future financing, for its six months in charge. So far it has not been able to claim a single clear success.   Turkey"s foreign minister, Abdullah Gul, warned yesterday that if conditions were attached "this kind of partnership can never be."   Alexander said anchoring Turkey in Europe would make it "a beacon of democracy and modernity" resonating throughout the Middle East. "We believe that if Europe fails to open talks with Turkey it would not simply be a betrayal of the hopes and expectations of the many millions of people in Turkey who want a European future, .... it would send the wrong message about enlargement."   Turkey had a higher rate of economic growth than any other EU member state, he said, plus young and vibrant population.
	Just saying no by Alain Gresh Le Monde Diplomatique France   September 2005   Beijing and Moscow signed an agreement, at the Vladivostok conference on 2 June, to settle their border differences; India confirmed its plans for investing in the Russian oil industry with $1bn for the project Sakhalin I. The Chinese, Russian and Indian foreign ministers meeting there also issued a statement condemning double standards in international relations, a clear reference to the United States.   Because of massive opposition in the US, China’s CNOC oil company in August withdrew its offer for the US oil giant Unocal; the global free circulation of capital lost to security imperatives. Also in August, Iran rejected the proposals of France, Germany and Britain, with US backing, that Tehran should abandon its uranium enrichment activities (under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, it has a right to this technology). In Tehran, where memories of foreign intervention, from the Russians in the 19th century to the CIA in 1953, are strong, the current preference is for national sovereignty.   There were other, not unrelated, events: frequent visits by Chinese leaders to Africa and Latin America; trade tensions between the US, Europe and China over textiles, aircraft and agriculture; South Korea’s recognition of North Korea’s right to a civilian nuclear industry (in contradiction to the position expressed by the US). Cumulatively these suggest the contours of a geopolitical situation far more complex than is generally imagined, which cannot be reduced to the onward march of globalisation and economic liberalism. Nationalisms, cultural specificities and ambitions rooted in history are alive and well; and more and more people are refusing to accept the terms of the new world order.   There is no sign of a supra-imperialism that might end the competition and rivalry. The US, as the Unocal affair showed, has no hesitation in defending its own interests; while from Beijing to São Paulo, from Seoul to New Delhi, there is a growing economic and political patriotism, and a determination that independence should be defended. At the World Trade Organisation meeting in Cancún in September 2003, 20 countries of the South, including India, Brazil and South Africa, blocked proceedings when their demands were not met. In France recent strong opposition to PepsiCo’s planned takeover of the food group Danone was the result of similar views.   To Francis Fukuyama, the end of history meant not only the triumph of globalisation, but also of the model of economic liberalism represented by the US. But the past 10 years have shown that globalisation and liberalism cannot win hearts and minds. In 1789 the ideas of the French revolution were popular in Europe and beyond; later the Soviet revolution served as an ideological and military challenge to the West. But while the armed might of the US grows to unprecedented power, US popularity around the world has slumped. Washington’s image abroad has never been so negative. As the International Herald Tribune put it: “Even China’s better”.   It is unlikely that any country will emerge to rival the US during the coming decade in the way that the Soviet Union did in the second half of the 20th century. Yet, despite its unrivalled military power, the US is still bogged down in Iraq, facing a resistance movement whose few thousands of fighters successfully tie down 148,000 US soldiers. The scandals of Guantánamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, torture and the erosion of civil liberties, undermine the claims by the US and some in Europe (the double-act called “the West”) that they alone are capable of defining universal values of human rights, democracy and liberty and have the authority to decide between good and evil, between which regimes are acceptable and which not, which are to have sanctions imposed on them and which not.   Everywhere there is a rejection of the media-promoted attempts of “the West” to impose shortsighted views of the world and dubious definitions of legality and morality. The success of satellite television channels in the Arab world, particularly Al Jazeera, and the launch of the Telesur satellite in South America, prove people’s unwillingness to be subjected, and this is evident in all areas of political, economic and cultural life (although it sometimes takes the deviant form of religious or national extremism, feeding the idea of a clash of civilisations).   In the early 18th century Europe was able to impose its hegemony on other powers. History has shown that this primacy derived from a particular conjuncture of advantages afforded by the colonial possession of North America and by trade. This translated into a military supremacy that enabled the old continent to impose colonialism on the rest of the world. Europe sought to legitimate this domination by a claimed millennial superiority of its values and thought, particularly Greek philosophy, despising all other cultures as barbaric or inferior. Now it seems that the US, and sometimes Europe, have returned to these earlier prejudices. They should remember that, no matter how developed or advanced, the colonial empires all eventually vanished.   (Translated by Ed Emery)
	View more stories