Tweet
BELGIAN FM: WE SHOULD STICK TO OUR COMMITMENTS OF DEC. 2004
By Selcuk Gultasli Zaman
Journal of Turkish Weekly
Sept 17 2005
Belgian Foreign Minister Karel De Gucht says European Union, or the
EU, should stick to its decisions and commitments that were taken in
the historic EU Summit of December 2004.
In an exclusive interview to ZAMAN during the heated debates on the EU
counter declaration on Cyprus and the negotiating framework document
among member countries, De Gucht said EU has not forgotten who said
"yes" and who said "no" to Annan Plan in Cyprus.
He called on the EU and the Commission in particular to end the
isolation of Turkish Cypriots. Here are the excerpts:
There are calls on Turkey to recognize Greek Cypriot government for
accession talks. Is EU changing the rules of the game?
My position has always been very clear. When we decided on December
17 about the conditions for opening talks with Turkey, recognition
by Turkey was not a condition. It is crystal clear that it is not a
condition. The condition was that Ankara protocol enlarging customs
union to new member countries will be signed and already at the time
of the December Council, Turkey made it clear that signature of
the Ankara protocol does not imply the recognition of Cyprus. The
position taken in the unilateral declaration a couple of weeks ago
saying that signature did not mean an implicit recognition of Cyprus
is not a new position, Turks have always taken that position. That
is very clear. On the other hand it is also obvious that Turkey will
never be able to enter EU without recognizing Cyprus, let's say during
the negotiations. In a given moment there should be a recognition
of Cyprus by Turkey but I am of the opinion that this should be
ideally done in the larger equation of the status of Cyprus. We can
not forget that there has been a proposal by the UN Secretary General
about Cyprus that has been refuted by the Greek Cypriots and accepted
by the Turkish Cypriots.
Turks have the impression that all 25 members have forgetton what
happened in the referanda.
I was in Newport, Gymnich meeting and several member countries made the
link. It is simply not true. Politicians are not people who forget so
much, but politicians tend to use the argument to serve their purpose
of the given time. Several member countries made references to Annan
Plan and underlined that it was refuted by the Greek Cypriots and
accepted by the Turks on the island.
Was it a mistake to admit Greek Cypriots to the Club without a
solution?
No, I was not a member of the Council when it was admitted. This
is an agreement and EU should live up to its commitments. I am not
questioning that but it is also very important that we come to a
solution, a lasting one making it possible, two communities living
peacefully on the same island and that same island being a member
of the EU. I can hardly imagine that Turkey and Cyprus are in EU
and yet we do not have a solution, that will create a very unstable
situation. It is important that we keep this link. On the one hand
Turkey should realize she shall come to grips with the Cypriot problem
but also Greek Cypriots shall come to grips with the Turkish part of
the island. Annan Plan or with some adjustments to it should be the
basis for the solution.
You said EU has not forgotten the "yes" and "no" sayers; however,
EU has forgotten packages to end the isolation of Turkish Cypriots.
I would not say nothing has come out of the packages. Green line
regulation has come out. The EU commission should be vigilant on the
faithful execution of the packages. It is a decision taken in April
2004 by the EU Council to end the isolation and it is now a part
of the acquis. The EU should execute this and the Commission should
closely monitor this.
Can you agree with the latest draft declaration that was struck
between Britain and France?
I can agree to this. That is exactly our position, recognition is not
a condition to start talks. But it is stated Turkey should realize
she should recognize Cyprus before entering EU and use the interval
for a possible solution. This is reflected in this compromise.
Greek Cypriots could prevent opening and closing of chapters anyway.
Everybody can. Chapters can only be opened and closed with the
consent of all member states. I am not so much afraid about this. The
only possible solution for the Cyprus problem is within the EU, we
must effectively use the accession process of Turkey to make this
happen. It won't be easy but it is the only option. It is true that
you need unanimous decision for opening chapters too. You can also
have suspension of talks with the proposal of commission or a number
of member states. You can say it is very difficult to have a unanimious
decision when you are 25 instead of six. That is true. It is also true
it is much easier to have a veto when you are six rather than 25. When
you are the only one in 25 to use veto then you get marginalized. To
be the only country to use veto in 25 is not that easy. You can see
it from both angles. You can say that it is difficult to reach a
unanimity in a club of 25 but it is also difficult to be the only
member to use veto in 25.
You reportedly said in your meeting with Belgian ambassadors in the
beginning of September that "we were quick on Turkey?
I never said that. What I said was we went very quickly in the
enlargement process that has already happened. 10 joined, two will
join in 2007. I said after the fall of Berlin Wall, we went very
quickly for political reasons sometimes not quite understanding its
effects on economy and society. What I said with respect to Turkey
is we should open talks with Turkey and it will take a long time and
we can only have decision when we agree on financial perspectives
for the period 2014-2020. This is different from what we did with
the others because now we do not have financial perspectives. We did
not adapt our institutions for another enlargement. We are much more
cautious with our negotiations with Turkey than it was the case with
the others. We are actually blamed that we are fast with Turkey. If
you look at the process, the process is open-ended, talks can be
suspended, chapters will be opened with unanimity, there are a lot of
conditions that we never envisaged for the 12 countries, whose 10 are
now members and the other two will be in 2007. It is strange that we
are blamed that we went too fast on Turkey. But it is a fact of life,
if you make a referendum today on Turkey's membership, the result in
Belgium will not be certain in advance. Nevertheless I have always
been a supporter of Turkish accession and let me remind that I was one
of the foreign ministers who worked for a compromise at the December
Summit. We have given this perspective to Turkey since the 1960s and
we should give a chance to Turkey to demonstrate that she can be a
member of the EU. So I never had doubts about this but it is a fact
of life at this particular time the idea of Turkey's membership is
not very popular. But as a politician you sometimes do things which
are not immediately supported by the public.
Some members are pushing for privileged partnership
We should stick to our decision of December 2004. It was decision
between EU Council and Turkey. It is very important in politics and
as well as in life you keep your commitments and promises.
Senate is now bringing up again Armenian genocide allegations that
could poision bilateral relations.
It shall not poison relations between Turkey and Belgium. Any senator
has the right to make a proposal and submit it to the Senate. That is
part of our democratic system. You know there was a proposal in the
Senate and it disappeared. We can not prohibit that senators submit
proposals and that proposals are discussed. Not specifically with
respect to "Armenian genocide" but in general as a lawyer and as a
liberal I have my doubts about this kind of "crimes". I think that in
Belgian law you have to limit it to very specific cases. I think you
should really limit it to very specific cases i.e. negationism with
respect to Holocaust. Holocaust is very clear. This is also part of
our society. We lived the WWII and we were involved in it. We still
have a limited number of people who negate the Holocaust but this is
completely different.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
By Selcuk Gultasli Zaman
Journal of Turkish Weekly
Sept 17 2005
Belgian Foreign Minister Karel De Gucht says European Union, or the
EU, should stick to its decisions and commitments that were taken in
the historic EU Summit of December 2004.
In an exclusive interview to ZAMAN during the heated debates on the EU
counter declaration on Cyprus and the negotiating framework document
among member countries, De Gucht said EU has not forgotten who said
"yes" and who said "no" to Annan Plan in Cyprus.
He called on the EU and the Commission in particular to end the
isolation of Turkish Cypriots. Here are the excerpts:
There are calls on Turkey to recognize Greek Cypriot government for
accession talks. Is EU changing the rules of the game?
My position has always been very clear. When we decided on December
17 about the conditions for opening talks with Turkey, recognition
by Turkey was not a condition. It is crystal clear that it is not a
condition. The condition was that Ankara protocol enlarging customs
union to new member countries will be signed and already at the time
of the December Council, Turkey made it clear that signature of
the Ankara protocol does not imply the recognition of Cyprus. The
position taken in the unilateral declaration a couple of weeks ago
saying that signature did not mean an implicit recognition of Cyprus
is not a new position, Turks have always taken that position. That
is very clear. On the other hand it is also obvious that Turkey will
never be able to enter EU without recognizing Cyprus, let's say during
the negotiations. In a given moment there should be a recognition
of Cyprus by Turkey but I am of the opinion that this should be
ideally done in the larger equation of the status of Cyprus. We can
not forget that there has been a proposal by the UN Secretary General
about Cyprus that has been refuted by the Greek Cypriots and accepted
by the Turkish Cypriots.
Turks have the impression that all 25 members have forgetton what
happened in the referanda.
I was in Newport, Gymnich meeting and several member countries made the
link. It is simply not true. Politicians are not people who forget so
much, but politicians tend to use the argument to serve their purpose
of the given time. Several member countries made references to Annan
Plan and underlined that it was refuted by the Greek Cypriots and
accepted by the Turks on the island.
Was it a mistake to admit Greek Cypriots to the Club without a
solution?
No, I was not a member of the Council when it was admitted. This
is an agreement and EU should live up to its commitments. I am not
questioning that but it is also very important that we come to a
solution, a lasting one making it possible, two communities living
peacefully on the same island and that same island being a member
of the EU. I can hardly imagine that Turkey and Cyprus are in EU
and yet we do not have a solution, that will create a very unstable
situation. It is important that we keep this link. On the one hand
Turkey should realize she shall come to grips with the Cypriot problem
but also Greek Cypriots shall come to grips with the Turkish part of
the island. Annan Plan or with some adjustments to it should be the
basis for the solution.
You said EU has not forgotten the "yes" and "no" sayers; however,
EU has forgotten packages to end the isolation of Turkish Cypriots.
I would not say nothing has come out of the packages. Green line
regulation has come out. The EU commission should be vigilant on the
faithful execution of the packages. It is a decision taken in April
2004 by the EU Council to end the isolation and it is now a part
of the acquis. The EU should execute this and the Commission should
closely monitor this.
Can you agree with the latest draft declaration that was struck
between Britain and France?
I can agree to this. That is exactly our position, recognition is not
a condition to start talks. But it is stated Turkey should realize
she should recognize Cyprus before entering EU and use the interval
for a possible solution. This is reflected in this compromise.
Greek Cypriots could prevent opening and closing of chapters anyway.
Everybody can. Chapters can only be opened and closed with the
consent of all member states. I am not so much afraid about this. The
only possible solution for the Cyprus problem is within the EU, we
must effectively use the accession process of Turkey to make this
happen. It won't be easy but it is the only option. It is true that
you need unanimous decision for opening chapters too. You can also
have suspension of talks with the proposal of commission or a number
of member states. You can say it is very difficult to have a unanimious
decision when you are 25 instead of six. That is true. It is also true
it is much easier to have a veto when you are six rather than 25. When
you are the only one in 25 to use veto then you get marginalized. To
be the only country to use veto in 25 is not that easy. You can see
it from both angles. You can say that it is difficult to reach a
unanimity in a club of 25 but it is also difficult to be the only
member to use veto in 25.
You reportedly said in your meeting with Belgian ambassadors in the
beginning of September that "we were quick on Turkey?
I never said that. What I said was we went very quickly in the
enlargement process that has already happened. 10 joined, two will
join in 2007. I said after the fall of Berlin Wall, we went very
quickly for political reasons sometimes not quite understanding its
effects on economy and society. What I said with respect to Turkey
is we should open talks with Turkey and it will take a long time and
we can only have decision when we agree on financial perspectives
for the period 2014-2020. This is different from what we did with
the others because now we do not have financial perspectives. We did
not adapt our institutions for another enlargement. We are much more
cautious with our negotiations with Turkey than it was the case with
the others. We are actually blamed that we are fast with Turkey. If
you look at the process, the process is open-ended, talks can be
suspended, chapters will be opened with unanimity, there are a lot of
conditions that we never envisaged for the 12 countries, whose 10 are
now members and the other two will be in 2007. It is strange that we
are blamed that we went too fast on Turkey. But it is a fact of life,
if you make a referendum today on Turkey's membership, the result in
Belgium will not be certain in advance. Nevertheless I have always
been a supporter of Turkish accession and let me remind that I was one
of the foreign ministers who worked for a compromise at the December
Summit. We have given this perspective to Turkey since the 1960s and
we should give a chance to Turkey to demonstrate that she can be a
member of the EU. So I never had doubts about this but it is a fact
of life at this particular time the idea of Turkey's membership is
not very popular. But as a politician you sometimes do things which
are not immediately supported by the public.
Some members are pushing for privileged partnership
We should stick to our decision of December 2004. It was decision
between EU Council and Turkey. It is very important in politics and
as well as in life you keep your commitments and promises.
Senate is now bringing up again Armenian genocide allegations that
could poision bilateral relations.
It shall not poison relations between Turkey and Belgium. Any senator
has the right to make a proposal and submit it to the Senate. That is
part of our democratic system. You know there was a proposal in the
Senate and it disappeared. We can not prohibit that senators submit
proposals and that proposals are discussed. Not specifically with
respect to "Armenian genocide" but in general as a lawyer and as a
liberal I have my doubts about this kind of "crimes". I think that in
Belgian law you have to limit it to very specific cases. I think you
should really limit it to very specific cases i.e. negationism with
respect to Holocaust. Holocaust is very clear. This is also part of
our society. We lived the WWII and we were involved in it. We still
have a limited number of people who negate the Holocaust but this is
completely different.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress