Türkiye ve Kıbrısulucgurkan.net

Kas 6 2000

Konu: Türkiye ve Kıbrıs

Özet:

Türkiye Avrupa’nın oluşturmaya çalıştığı güvenlik yapısından dışlanırsa, Avrupa güvenliği eksik kalır. Güvenlik sürecine Güney Kıbrıs’ın eklenmesi ise Avrupa güvenliğine katkı yapmaz, tam aksine yeni güvenlik sorunları doğurur.

İçerik: The Implementation of the Common European Security and Defence Policy and WEU ‘ s Future Role– Reply to the Annual Report of the Council
WEU Parliamentary Assembly, 46th Plenary Session (Second Part 11th Sitting)
Paris, 6 December 2000

Mr Marshall's report offers us an opportunity to discuss the new security borders of Europe. I support the main thrust of the report, but some points need clarification, if not correction.
First, contrary to information based on some distorted press reports, Turkey does not reject the consultation and cooperation arrangements currently on the table. We accept the dialogue mechanisms proposed by the EU as a starting point. However, we strongly believe that those mechanisms should be developed further, especially with regard to the rights and responsibilities of associate members and associate partners.
For 50 years, Turkey has made an immense contribution to European security and defence. Turkey cannot participate only on the basis of crisis management. Turkey has made some proposals on that model, but none of them have been taken into account. For some time, we have been told that the legal structure of the EU does not permit the participation that we propose, but to participate without the veto rights of the 15 would not upset the EU's legality. Non-NATO EU members should not have better rights and status than the non-EU NATO allies, which is not the case at the moment. If non-NATO EU members participate in NATO affairs, that should apply to non-EU NATO members.
As is well known, the EU has some shortfalls in meeting its military commitments, and Turkey has the potential to meet those shortfalls. To that end, Turkey has declared its determination and its possible contributions, but we have encountered some difficulties in obtaining answers to our proposals. The indifferent treatment of Turkish proposals discourages Turkey from engaging positively in current NATO-EU cooperation, and that may give rise to several new problems in the future.
Mr Marshall states in the report that Cyprus has asked to become an associate partner of WEU, and that it would be helpful if the Council were to adopt a positive position in that respect. I do not want to believe that Mr Marshall's intention is to treat the non-EU NATO members in the same way as other third countries which do not have, and never had, comparable responsibilities in European security and defence. That would not be fair.
On the other hand, certain political problems arise in relation to Cyprus. The reference to Cyprus relates only to the Greek side of the island. As is well known, there are two equal and sovereign states in Cyprus, and each state represents only its own people and their actions are confined to their own population. That fact should not be forgotten. I take this opportunity to remind the Assembly that, in the Presidential Committee on 5 July, it was underlined that northern Cyprus is also represented in the Council of Europe. Therefore, when Cyprus is invited, WEU should proceed in the same way as the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. Any other approach would be to become involved in the settlement of the Cyprus question and would be a clear double standard. Double standards should not lead us. I am a politician, not a diplomat so I know that double standards are a symptom of a diseased political culture which threatens the very context of politics itself.
I emphasise that a central Europe-oriented approach is artificial. It may yield positive short-term results, but its outcome in the mid-term could invite new divisions and groupings in Europe. The goal to shape the European Security and Defence Policy must be a unitary system for crisis management, covering non EU-allies as well as non-NATO EU members. In such a unitary structure we could prevent the creation of dividing lines in the European Security and Defence Policy. Otherwise, dividing lines will also be created in NATO, giving rise to great concern.
Last, but not least, history has proved that artificial solutions are short lived.