Under the above title, Turkish daily Today’s Zaman (12.03.12) published the following article by Alper Ali Riza:
“Turkey’s application for membership in the EU has virtually ground to a halt, blocked by Germany and France, to the delight of the Greek Cypriots, who from July 1, 2012, will assume the presidency of the Council of the EU for six months, adding insult to injury to Turkish pride.
Or so it seems, even to many euro-friendly Turks, some of whom are beginning to think the attractions of possible membership in the EU are no longer worth the pain of prolonged rejection, let alone the psychological discomfort of having to watch from the sidelines as the Greek Cypriots sit at top table playing top dog. The Turkish government for its part is contemplating suspending relations with the EU, as if the threat of such action can make any difference. Given that the principle of equal rotation of the presidency of the Council is deeply embedded in the EU treaties, Cyprus will assume the reins of power, and the only question is what the nature of that power is and how the Turkish side should respond.
Some commentators regard the presidency as an illusory institution, a moveable feast of fudge and compromise designed to make the smaller states of the EU feel good through the exercise of pseudo-power. Others regard its function as primarily clerical, determining agendas and facilitating dialogue. In actual fact, the main function of the presidency is to play second fiddle to the Commission in setting the EU’s legislative program for six months. Foreign affairs used to be part of its role, but this has now been siphoned off to the High Representative for Foreign Affairs by the Lisbon Treaty. When he was Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger famously asked rhetorically:
‘Who do I telephone for a European position in a crisis?’ The President of Cyprus is not the answer.
In truth, the rotating presidency, prestigious for a small and divided country like Cyprus though it is, impedes rather than enhances a state’s ability to promote its interests because it must not appear to be doing so, although the Cypriots will no doubt become the exception that proves the rule. But the reality about equality within the EU, paraphrasing George Orwell in “Animal Farm,” is that all states in the EU are equal but some are less equal than others, as the current crisis in the Eurozone proves, as if proof were needed.
The Turkish side has a choice as to how to respond. The emotional, some would say irrational, response would be to suspend relations with the EU. Alternatively, Turkey could take a rational and pragmatic view, like the Turkish Football Federation (TFF) does in the European Champions League, and engage with Cyprus not by suspending relations with the EU but by dealing with the presidency of Cyprus pragmatically and adopting a minimalist position in light of the limited nature of the role of the presidency.
Suspending relations with the EU would serve no discernible Turkish interest except feed false pride. Suspending non-recognition of Cyprus, on the other hand, would serve Turkish interests in many ways. First it would be novel and imaginative and could enable the Turkish Cypriots to press the EU for economic engagement as envisaged by Protocol 10 of the Accession Treaty. This would place the Greek Cypriots trembling on a wedge: If they stall they would be shown up as promoting their own sectarian interests, and if they go along with it they will set a trend for future presidencies. Although suspending non-recognition would not mean showering the Greek Cypriots with attention, it would send an important signal both to the EU and the Greek Cypriots that Turkish foreign policy is based on respect for rules rather than power. In the context of the discovery of the gas deposits south of Cyprus, this would be an important psychological signal of Turkey’s preparedness to do business with Cyprus to mutual advantage, thus reducing a potential source of conflict that normally accompanies the discovery of oil and gas.
On the other side, it is also time for Turkey to take a serious look at the democratic credentials of persisting with its application to join the EU by holding a referendum on whether its people wish to join the moribund assortment of states on the edge of history that the EU seems to have become. The period of the Cypriot presidency would be an ideal time to hold such a referendum as a token of protest, not against the Cypriot presidency as such, but against the machinations that brought it about. It is not widely known that in 2004 the EU studiously ignored international treaties between Turkey, Britain, Greece and Cyprus under which Cyprus was precluded from joining any political or economic union with any state or membership of any international organization, such as the EU, unless both Greece and Turkey are both members, which was not the case with the EU since Turkey is not a member. Of course, what is done cannot be undone, not least because Turkey tacitly gambled at the time in the hope of enhancing its own prospects of joining the EU, but it was a serious violation of the rule of law to the geopolitical detriment of Turkey, for which the EU must be called to account.”