Konuk Yazar, 25 Haziran 2001
Murat Ilican
Hawks V.S. Doves
Hawks V.S. Doves: the Turkish establishment divided All the decision-making institutions in Turkey -ranging from political parties to the powerful military- are divided into two camps with regards to the present and future Turkish policies over Cyprus in the light of the accession process of the island and the dynamics arising from it. One camp known as the ‘hawks’ is advocating a stiff nationalist stance in favor of a con-federal solution on the island and calling for no concessions, proposing that in case of no viable solution prior to the island’s EU membership, the annexation of Northern Cyprus be realized. And yet another camp, the ‘doves’ follows a more open-minded line, calling for a viable future solution to be found based on political equality as was expressed in the 1960 constitution with the elimination of security concerns both for Turkey and Turkish Cypriots.
The Cyprus constitution (article 50) specifically mentions the impossibility of Cyprus belonging to any organization that both Turkey and Greece is not a member. However, by signing the Custom Union agreement with the EU in the mid 1990’s, Turkey paved the way forward for the ‘Republic of Cyprus’ to become an EU applicant member without consulting Turkish Cypriots (who after all, have veto power on such an issue). And later on with the Helsinki decisions, Turkey further cemented this process making Cyprus an applicant firmly on its way to full membership as early as 2002. It, in other words, implicitly accepted the legality of this application as filed by the whole of Cyprus despite the practical cease-fire line division that would otherwise confer the status of being filed by ‘half’ a state to this application. One and a half years away from the deadline, Turkey now finds itself divided in opinion on how to handle the (in)famous Cyprus Conflict.
Turkey is an official EU candidate herself; however, the path to full membership will require a lot of time and effort that will have to be invested both by the EU and Turkey. This reality, in turn coupled with the embedded mistrust towards the whole EU establishment by some segments of the Turkish political establishment, translates as the solidification of the Turkish stance as that frequently advocated by the hawks. The doves on the other hand perceive the EU convergence as a catalyst for a long awaited social and economic transformation, which the Turkish public at large urgently demands. They see Cyprus as a source of conflict with regards to the EU-Turkey relationship and strongly support at least a search for a commonly acceptable way forward. They encourage Mr. Denktas to return to the table and negotiate with the intention of finding a long awaited settlement.
The two recent economic crises in Turkey, corruptions and prolonged structural reforms resulted in the loss of public trust towards the politicians and the political parties. According to recent opinion polls, no single political party is currently being supported by more than 10% of the voting population. The 10% threshold is important, as it is the minimum limit required for entering the Parliament. Therefore, the next general elections, provided that no serious changes are made to the election law, may result in a one-party dictatorship or no party representation in the Turkish National Assembly (or many other alternatives, but equally undemocratic scenarios). The political parties and the whole political establishment need to restructure so as to enforce democracy and freedom at all levels of the society and prevent undemocratic political party closures and inter party promotions to come to an end (Only last week, Turkey experienced yet another party closure. Fazilet, the main opposition party in the parliament, was closed by the order of the constitutional court.).
The Turkish people, largely consisting of young and dynamic human capital with the potential for creating a reformed 21st century Turkey with universal values, are currently in search for a political leadership to lead the way. So far, the existing coalition parties are barely hanging onto the power thanks to the injection of newly borrowed IMF and World Bank funds into the country. The government is in return working hard to pass the pre-conditional legislature put forward as a condition by the IMF (which to a large extend coincides with those changes required by the EU).
The main problem however, is that the Turkish voting population consists of 50% farmers & peasants, 15-20% merchants and 10% middle class voters, which explains why former election victories were traditionally secured more through populist promises to farmers and merchants than addressing the real needs of the country. This years-long cheap populism has brought the country nothing more than chaos and economic crisis so that the current and future generations will need to pay for the political mistakes of the past through lower standards of living, unemployment and social unrest.
Turkey has also lost externally. Its regional influence diminished due to its current state of being. For example, the emergence of Turkish States out of the collapse of Soviet Union in early 1990s inspired ideas of a greater Turkey, as the leader of the new Turkish states. However, the lack of an effective and efficient institutional framework and its economic weakness resulted in the missing of this historic chance with those resource-rich Turkish States, who inevitably fell back into the sphere of influence of Russia. Russia, China and the young Turkish Republics have recently established a new economic and political pact among them. This was the last signal that Turkey will be largely excluded from this region. It is important to note here that this in no way implies that Turkey as an EU member with a better political and stronger economic system will not regain its influence. After all, the ‘cultural’ links that exist will continue to be there, to be utilized at the right time.
One needs to realize that despite its current problems, Turkey is a country of great importance for many obvious reasons. And one should also realize that the weaknesses of Turkey can and should not be abused, but on the contrary should be used in such a constructive manner that both Turkey and her allies will benefit in the future. Helping the internal reformation process of Turkey (a process that has already began) in such a sensitive and globally strategic geography will help strengthen global and regional peace and stability and help liberate the Turkish people both economically and politically. A democratic, developed Turkey with western values was, after all, one of Ataturk’s great visions. And that is what the majority of the Turkish people desire more than ever before. On the other hand, Turkish politicians should also realize that Turkey’s importance is in no way a free ticket to heaven that can be taken for granted. It is about time that Turkey seriously implements all the reforms to take the country into the next millenium as a respected, developed, country.
For better or worse within this period of economic and political super unions, Turkey needs to determine its place of belonging. This is a place that has already been decided upon in 1999 in Helsinki by both Turkey and the EU. Following this, the needed reforms to help the convergence process should be implemented internally, and the EU should help facilitate this process externally. Apart from reforms, other important issues that are and can be sources of conflict between the EU and Turkey should be eliminated as soon as possible. The existence of these conflicts such as Cyprus, the Aegean and European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP) creates an environment of lack of trust that in turn hinders the convergence process.
Both Greece and Turkey accepted that the Aegean problem would either be solved through bilateral talks by 2004 or, in a worst case scenario, in the Hague. The EU will certainly resolve its differences with a dedicated NATO member if it is to consider its own security and defense policy, and Cyprus needs to be handled in such a manner that the balance of power currently in the hands of the Hawks in Ankara shifts to Doves. And to encourage such a shift, a comprehensive settlement with a transition period to eliminate the existing economic and social gap between the North and the South part of the island is needed, which will satisfy the security concerns of all Cypriots and thus ensure the long term viability of the solution. All involved parties i.e. Turkey, Greece, and the EU are shouting about an urgent solution prior to EU membership of the island. But the same players are all warning each other about probable problems if a solution is not reached by then. The EU is becoming more and more aware of the approaching danger, which was rather obvious during the last EU summit at Goteburg. For the first time ever everybody wants to solve this problem out of necessity rather than humanism but still, a solution is strongly wanted. The next step is to persuade the locals to sit down and draw up a workable plan under the guidance of the international community. At this stage, more than any other, the doves in Turkey should be supported and encouraged by initiatives and policies geared towards satisfying the sensitivities of Turkey vis-a-vis Cyprus.