Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ANKARA: Parliamentary Labyrinths

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ANKARA: Parliamentary Labyrinths

    PARLIAMENTARY LABYRINTHS
    By Nazlan Ertan

    The New Anatolian, Turkey
    Sept 26 2006

    Opinions

    Relations between Turkey and the European Parliament have always been,
    to say the least, bombastic, although, admittedly, Turkey has never
    gone as far as member state France, whose onetime Foreign Minister
    Herve de Charette called the European Parliament "a parliament not
    worthy of that name," when the latter criticized a French bill to
    crack down on illegal immigration and toughen conditions for residence
    permits. Yet, the tone between Ankara and the only directly elected
    body of the European Union has remained cold, hostile and laden with
    mutual name-calling.

    Part of the reason for this has been the European Parliament
    itself. Many would refer to the Parliament as the "conscience of the
    EU" -- based on its focus on human rights, individual liberties and
    freedom of expression. Others would refer to it as the cacophony of
    Europe, where any idea, any national interest or even cliche will
    find at least one supporter.

    For some time, European Parliament deputies have come under strong
    pressure for mismanagement, misconduct, even corruption, that ranged
    from employing their own family members as staff to acceptance of
    gifts, trips and even cash from lobby groups. The deputies have also
    been accused of ignorance, lack of research and having no idea of
    what they were voting on, or, indeed, what they are proposing. They
    have also been accused of carrying their national agenda to that of
    Europe and prioritizing their national interest over the collective
    one of the Union.

    In my years as Brussels correspondent, I have come across both
    excellently formed, independent minded and knowledgeable deputies who
    looked for innovative ideas and, alternatively, backbenchers who were
    at the mercy of their assistants, lobbies or national interests.

    Among the many rapporteurs of the past decade, there were those
    who carried great weight in their party group, such as Austrian
    Socialist Hannes Swoboda, or French Conservative Alain Lamassoure;
    or those who were selected because of a certain vision toward the
    Eastern Mediterranean and Turkey, such as French Gen.

    Philippe Morillion. There was also the problematic Arie Oostlander,
    who looked and acted as if he paid his first-ever visit to Turkey
    only after he was appointed to the post.

    Then came Camiel Eurlings, an excellent representative of the young
    generation of politicians in the European Parliament, open, photogenic
    and plainly devoid of political weight in his party group, Foreign
    Affairs Committee and Parliament.

    Then the result: a European Parliament report that establishes,
    for the first time, the recognition of the Armenian genocide as a
    precondition to Turkish accession to the European Union. It adds two
    other "genocides" -- that of Pontic Greeks and Syriacs to the bill.

    Because we journalists have the memory of elephants, we know that
    this is hardly the first time that certain groups in the European
    Parliament wanted this done. In the late 1990s, there were efforts to
    attach a similar amendment to the report of Swoboda, who rejected it
    and announced, if this was ever done, he would remove his name from
    the report -- a major scandal, had it happened.

    Turkish diplomacy has certainly come a good way in playing the game in
    the labyrinths of the European Parliament. Through laborious attempts
    at all levels, it has established relations with different committees,
    Parliament civil servants and leaned heavily upon certain key members
    of important parliamentary groups. Experienced ambassadors who made a
    lifetime career of the European file, as well as bright young diplomats
    continue to pass through the Turkish Representation to the European
    Union in Brussels.

    So what happened?

    Before the EP's key vote this week on the Eurlings report, where
    the young MEP is certain there will be improvement, let us ask the
    following questions: At what stage did Turkey become aware of those
    amendments? Does it have the necessary links with Parliament and key
    party groups to be told about such amendments in time? What did Turkish
    diplomats and politicians do when they learned about it? Does Turkey
    have the necessary network in Parliament to counter the anti-Turkish
    lobbies, from Armenians to Greek Cypriots to pro-Kurdish groups? Are
    we benefiting from the parliamentary dimension of the Civil Society
    Dialogue with the European Union?

    Or do we think that sending Parliament delegations to the EPA so that
    they can fight among themselves is effective diplomacy?
Working...
X