Posted on 12/07/2002 3:42:41 PM PST by pkpjamestown
NICOSIA, Dec 7 (AFP) - Turkish Cypriot leader Rauf Denktash said Saturday that he would continue to negotiate the island's reunification, but not be pressed into signing a deal ahead of next week's European Union summit in Copenhagen.
"In the coming days, they (the UN) are going to put a document before (Greek Cypriot leader Glafcos) Clerides and myself so that we sign (...) Cyprus would then join the EU and we continue to negotiate" on details of the reunification deal, he said in a televised speech from the airport on his return home from the United States.
But, he added, "we do not recognize that road".
EU leaders at the Copenhagen summit are poised to formally invite divided Cyprus, represented by the internationally-recognized ethnically Greek south of the island, to join the bloc in 2004.
The EU would prefer to welcome a reunited island, but has warned it will take in just the Greek Cypriot government if necessary.
"We will continue to negotiate after the Greek Cypriots are allowed into the EU," Denktash said, adding that he was not ready "to pay the cost" of signing an early deal just to be allowed into the EU alongside the Greek Cypriots.
"We have our state, we have our sovereignty and we have a sound cause," said the 78-year-old Denktash, who arrived from New York where he has been recovering from a heart operation.
"We will continue along with the motherland (Turkey) to resolve our cause through common sense, calm and negotiations," he added.
In a bid to jump-start the stalled peace process on the island, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan last month presented to the two communities on the island a settlement blueprint envisaging a Swiss-style confederation composed of two equal states.
The two sides on Friday handed in their response to the plan, and the UN special envoy for Cyprus Alvaro de Soto will now engage in proximity talks on the island in a bid to secure a general agreement to the plan before the Copenhagen summit.
Before flying into northern Cyprus, Denktash met with Recep Tayyip Erdogan, head of Turkey's governing Justice and Development Party, and Prime Minister Abdullah Gul for 30 minutes in Istanbul during a brief stopover to discuss the UN plan.
"Our stance is very clear. We are not a state that sees non-solution as a solution" to the problem of the division of Cyprus, Gul told reporters after the meeting.
"We would also like a solution in Cyprus, but that solution needs to be mutually satisfactory," he added.
Gul also hinted that admitting just the Greek Cypriots to the EU would not benefit efforts to re-unify the island.
"We have always told the European Union that it needs to facilitate the resolution of the Cyprus question," he said.
Turkey is seeking to get a firm date from the Copenhagen summit for the opening of accession talks, but has so far been snubbed by the EU on the grounds that it needs more progress to catch up with European norms.
"It is clear that a solution will become easier if the EU gives Turkey the date it deserves in Copenhagen. A firm date to be given to Turkey will facilitate the resolution of many problems both in our region and in Turkish-EU ties," Gul also said.
He warned that it would be injustice to deny Turkey a date.
"If an injustice is done against Turkey, it would not be acceptable," Gul said.
The UN has been involved as mediator in a series of talks aimed to resolve the Cyprus problem, since 1963 (both before and after the Turkish 1974 invasion). The Turkish side’s intransigence has always been the cause for the collapse of the talks. The Turkish side’s policy, was that the Cyprus issue was resolved with the 1974 invasion.
The Republic of Cyprus has applied and has met all the requirements for EU membership. The north occupied part of the island, has maintained the position that they are an independent state. They did not apply for EU membership, but instead with Turkey's support, concentrated their “foreign policy” efforts in getting international recognition for their "state". The international community, including the U.S., has not recognized this illegal state. All countries maintain embassies on the part of the island controlled the internationally recognized government of the Republic of Cyprus.
On the eleventh hour, a few minutes before the republic of Cyprus is accepted into the EU, the Turkish position on Cyprus changes. Their support of the self-declared, self-recognized Turkish Cypriot “state” disappears. They want to solve the Cyprus ‘issue” again. They also want to be part of the EU also. They also want Turkey to be part of Europe. They want Cyprus to be part of the EU, but only after Turkey is a member first. They want to have their own “independent state” within the “newly created – Swiss cheese Cyprus State” and also collect and control the benefits and taxes of the five times richer Greek Cypriot side. They want to ignore the fact that most homes and land in their possession are the property of Greek Cypriot families who became refugees in 1974. The expect these refugees to sign over the deeds of their properties to the 150,000 imported mainland Turks, and at the same time pay taxes to be used for the welfare of these thieves. They want to dissolve the prosperous Republic of Cyprus and in its place create a new welfare state for the Turkish minority, with restrictions and quotas all in the benefit of Turkey. The Greek Cypriot majority (85%) is against such a plan. Wouldn’t you do the same in their place?
It is amazing that the U.S. and the UN are in support of these injustices against the Cypriot people, even to this day.
If people want on or off this list, please let me know.
"There will be no date at Copenhagen," Rasmussen, whose country currently holds the rotating EU presidency, told the newspaper Die Welt.
Like other nations bidding for EU membership, Turkey will need to fulfil all criteria before receiving a date to begin negotiations, he said.
"We will only give a date when Turkey has fulfilled the political criteria. The only question is to know how we are going to communicate this principle" at the EU summit in Copenhagen on Thursday and Friday.
Turkey is the only country among 13 EU hopefuls not to have begun entry talks with the Union. But Ankara has claimed it has earned the right to a date for negotiations because of reforms it recently adopted.
While some EU members such as Italy, Britain and Greece back Ankara's demands, others believe the time is still not right.
France and Germany suggested on Thursday that Turkey be allowed to start EU membership talks in July 2005, if the country has made sufficient progress on democratic and human rights reforms.
"We have asked Turkey to present us with a concrete timetable on the application of these reforms. That will be very important for a definitive decision on a date... There are several options," Rasmussen said.
"I have five options and I have actually asked my colleagues what option they want. So we can then decide."
On Saturday, Turkish newspapers blasted the French-German offer, with headlines describing the proposal as an "injustice" and "unacceptable".
In a last minute diplomatic offensive, the leader of Turkey's ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), Recep Tayyip Erdogan, is to hold talks with Rasmussen on Monday.
Meanwhile, Turkish Prime Minister Abdullah Gul kept up the pressure on EU leaders to meet Ankara's request.
"It is clear that a solution will become easier if the EU gives Turkey the date it deserves in Copenhagen. A firm date to be given to Turkey will facilitate the resolution of many problems both in our region and in Turkish-EU ties," Gul told reporters in Istanbul.
He warned that it would be injustice to deny Turkey a date.
"If an injustice is done against Turkey, it would not be acceptable," Gul said.
"We want nothing less. if we obtain less, then it will be difficult to explain to public opinion."
The EU hopes at the Copenhagen summit to invite 10 countries -- Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia -- to join on May 1, 2004."
Cyprus will be united when Turkey becomes a member of the EU. Greece, Turkey, all of Cyprus, UK, Germany, France, etc, will all be united under the EU umbrella, with the same laws, the same freedoms, the same currency.... and the same common language - English. The now British bases in Cyprus will be EU bases!
THE END
http://observer.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,855425,00.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can we make the new Europe work?
Nobody knows for certain how the new Europe will act - but Europe's leaders have much to do to ensure that enlargement does not mark the start of the EU's decline
Kirsty Hughes
Sunday December 8, 2002
The Copenhagen Summit will mark the start of a new European Union very different from the one we know today. The enlargement of the EU represents a new historical phase for Europe - and one full of uncertainty since no one really knows for sure what sort of political and economic animal the enlarged EU will be.
Copenhagen will not only see solutions to the final budget wrangles, especially between the two countries most important to the enlargement process, Germany and Poland, allowing the EU to expand from 15 to 25. It will also approve in principle the goal of Bulgaria and Romania joining by 2007. But most of all the Summit is likely to focus on the highly interrelated issues of a peace settlement for Cyprus - avoiding a divided island joining the EU - and the offer of a date, possibly 2005, for negotiations on accession to start with Turkey. This opens up the prospect of an EU of 28 countries by the end of the decade with borders running all the way to the Middle East - and with more countries from the Balkans to Ukraine queuing up in the distance.
This is the new Europe that has emerged slowly out of the end of the Cold War. But does anybody really know what this enlarged EU will be like? Will it work or could it fall apart? And how will it and how should it change? The new Europe will be highly diverse in all dimensions - geopolitics, economic and social conditions, political priorities. With almost half a billion people, and borders from Russia and Ukraine in the North-East, to the Balkans in the southeast, and the Mediterranean and North Africa in the south and southwest, the EU of the future is going to need more than a broad underpinning of a common European culture to ensure its political, economic and social effectiveness.
Europe's political leaders are not unaware of the challenge. They know that the Nice Treaty - finally accepted by the Irish on a second referendum - only represents marginal tinkering to ensure that the new member states when they join will at least be able to vote in the Council and have members in the European Parliament. More ambitiously, the Convention on the future of Europe, with Giscard d'Estaing in the chair, has been tasked with making the new EU more democratic, politically and operationally efficient, and a strong voice in the world. By next June, it should produce a new European constitution that provides at least some of the answers.
This future of Europe Convention, meeting in public, is undertaking the biggest assessment and reevaluation of the functioning of the EU since it was founded over 40 years ago. It is as if, many years late, the EU motor is finally having a major service. But the question is whether a major service will be adequate instead of constructing an entirely new vehicle. And nobody has a definite answer since nobody knows for sure what the enlarged EU will be like - the car is being serviced and redesigned, but until we get there, we don't know what the road and traffic conditions of the new Europe will look like. It is a major historical leap forward but it is also a leap in the dark.
In this uncertain environment, the work of the Convention should not be underestimated. Much of it is inevitably technical and legalistic. But a huge task of simplifcation is under way which will increase coherence, transparency and comprehensibility of the political and institutional structures of the EU. Complex and incoherent decision-making rules and multiple routes for law-making are all being radically streamlined. But simplification can be politically sensitive. For example, if the vast majority of decisions in future are to be made by majority voting, getting rid of each country's veto, then the EU may stand a chance of not seizing up, but governments and their publics will have to decide if they are ready for this kind of pooling of sovereignty and joint decision-making.
And, even if more efficient, will the enlarged EU be more democratic and more in touch with the public than the current one? Certainly, increased simplicity and transparency will help. And openness should increase too: proposals are likely to ensure that the Council, where governments currently meet and make laws in private, will in future meet in public like any other democratic law-making body.
But much more is needed to build a democratic Europe. The European Council - of heads of state - and the European Commission (which with enlargement will have 25 commissioner) between them share, in effect, the tasks of a European government - they share the executive tasks for European policy. Increased democracy must mean these bodies are truly accountable. Currently, the Commission is weakly accountable to the European Parliament. The European Council is accountable to noone as a whole - though its individual heads of state are accountable separately to their own national parliaments. More political control and oversight is vital.
Democracy is also about active participation and debate of the wider public, with real opportunities for access and input. Yet these aspects are also largely being ignored - the convention is focused on the institutional and legal elements of a new constitution and so risks leaving to one side creative thinking on how to build participative democracy in European politics. It is not enough that a new constitution is simple and accessible - that can only be the first step.
The new Europe also risks failing to play a strong and progressive role in the world - despite the rhetorical commitments of Europe's political leaders. The EU of 25 countries and half a billion people may be an economic giant but a political dwarf just at a time when global challenges and uncertainties call more than ever before for a clear European voice. The future of Europe convention is drafting a statement of values and goals for Europe's role in the world - with welcome emphasis on multilateralism, tackling poverty and discrimination and promoting peace and prosperity.
But these good intentions run far ahead of the EU's ability to deliver a single common voice and strategy on the international stage. Countries like Britain and France remain highly reluctant to act together, even when their views converge, wanting their own individual profiles on the global stage. And they are even more reluctant to undertake the in-depth political discussions that would be needed to come to common positions when their views diverge. Europe's confusion and multiplicity of views over the Iraq crisis show how far we remain from having a common and coordinated European position - whether in the UN or in dialogue with the US. With enlargement, diversity of interests and views in Europe will grow.
Only genuine political will and commitment across all the countries of the new EU could ensure the big steps forward to promote strong European values and policies internationally in the difficult times that lie ahead. In its absence, the EU will look as if it is focusing on organising its own internal policies and political organisation - navel-gazing - while taking little responsibility in the global context. Europe will lose legitimacy on the international stage. Meanwhile at home, if the enlarged EU manages to improve its internal efficiency but not its democracy it may find it has lost legitimacy domestically as well.
The enlargement to be launched at Copenhagen is a historic achievement. But it is only the first step in meeting the European and global political challenges that the new Europe must address. If it fails, then this moment will be seen as a turning point that marked the start of the EU's decline and not its new beginning.
Kirsty Hughes is a writer and consultant on European affairs based in London and Brussels and is senior fellow at the Centre for European Policy Studies in Brussels"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.