In the American press, the reforms that Turkey made are called (logically) "The Turkish Model". However, Ataturks' original reforms have been in part degenerated by Turkish politicians, and what ever remains in Turkey of Ataturk's reforms would not do the job right. Therefore, I want preferably to speak of the original "Ataturk Model" in stead of the "Turkish Model."

What is really the Ataturk Model? About a century ago, Ataturk was asking himself why the Ottoman Empire was crumbling, while the European nations were flourishing. He found the answer in the study of the French Enlightenment writers such as Rousseau, Diderot, Montesquieux, and Voltaire and in the study of West European history. During the last four centuries, West-Europeans made considerable scientific research and began to teach the common people to use some of that science in their daily lives. They also learned to make their daily decisions by being guided by science rather than by religion, tradition, and superstition as the Ottomans would be guided by. Further more, Europeans have been always questioning their knowledge so that they were always able to improve on it, while Islamic nations were trained to accept the Koran as an absolute truth that cannot be questioned nor even interpreted. About twenty years later, after Ataturk had founded the Republic of Turkey on part of the old Ottoman lands, he made a number of reforms that fundamentally changed the identity of the Turkish society and brought it closer to the European society. As a result, Turks have not continued to be poor and ignorant like the other Islamic nations who split from the Ottoman Empire, but they began to progress and prosper and formed somewhat of a democratic society.

The Islamic societies were forced by the Koran to continue living in the 7th Century and became unfit to live in the 21st Century. They were also unfit to resist the domination of the Western nations, which were considerably stronger than they were. Unable to confront the West in conventional warfare, some radical groups in the Islamic societies chose terrorism to fight the West. They miscalculated. Those terrorists and the societies that host them are now being crushed, as they should be.

What did Turkey do to come to the 20th Century? Turkey (1) abolished the Caliphate, (2) outlawed the Sharia and adopted European laws, (3) emancipated its women and made them legally equal to men, (4) closed religious schools and instituted a national secular education system, [ that was later compromised by Turkish politicians] (5) declared that "Sovereignty belongs unconditionally to the people" , opened a parliament, and built a democratic government system. I advocated that approach in my article titled "The Attack on America" on October 1. But soon it occurred to me and I was also cautioned by friends, that the reforms in Turkey were made under the leadership of an unusual leader like Ataturk and to duplicate the same reforms elsewhere would be extremely difficult, almost impossible without Ataturk. I explained these difficulties in my article titled "The New War" that was published on October 15. Yet, I think, the application of the Ataturk Model is the only way of bringing the Islamic countries to the 21st Century and to modernity.

I think, there still is a possible solution and engineering can provide it. This, I have to explain.

Before WWI, most things were manufactured by highly skilled master craftsmen who would start with the raw material and manufacture the entire object by themselves That was a slow process and required the expensive labor of a master craftsman. Also, if suddenly a great many of these objects (Let us call them "Widgets") were to be produced, this demand could not be met, because more master craftsmen could not be found. Industrial engineers found a way to solve this problem. They studied the work done by master craftsmen and divided it into small operations that can be performed by non-skilled workmen. Those workmen would cost much less than the skilled craftsman. Each operation to manufacture the widget would be done by a different worker. Thus, these workers would each do always the same simple operation. That would make it possible to suddenly increase the production of widgets without having more skilled craftsmen. This finding was the basis of mass production technology that made it possible for the U.S. to produce considerable amounts of various products at a lower cost and by using just ordinary unskilled workers..

The same idea can be used also to implement the Ataturk Model in an Islamic country without Ataturk. After all, the genius of Ataturk was to find all the things that have to be done to convert an Islamic country to a modern nation. He did it at a time when there was no precedent. He was the first one to do it. That was unique and very difficult. But once his reforms were successfully applied and proven in Turkey, they can be studied, dissected, subdivided, and applied to any other Islamic country. All that would be necessary, would be (a) a clear explanation to the Islamic nation why the drastic change has to be applied to it and (b) a very effective and strong authority to force the drastic change on the Islamic nation. If the head of an Islamic nation is convinced of the necessity of the drastic change, he probably would lead his nation by exerting the needed pressure on them.. If not, the United States could exert the force necessary for the change. This sort of thing cannot be done democratically. Any way, the Islamic masses are not democratic and only drastic change to adopt the Ataturk Model would make them democratic eventually.

There is no way of avoiding stepping on a lot of toes in order to change the Islamic societies to modern ones. The first reactions will be screams such as "They are taking away our religion", or "They are interfering in domestic affairs in our country" . Sure, the Islamic countries have to be rescued from the savagery of the Sharia ( cutting hands and legs diagonally, or stoning to death as punishment for crimes that would not be considered serious in the West) and from the ignorance of the Islamic schools. They must be made to understand in secular schools how the World really ticks. They must also be made to understand that it is the anachronistic mentality of the radical Muslims that condemns them to ignorance, poverty, and weakness. They must be made to ask themselves whether they would rather be free, educated, strong and prosperous or, insist in sticking to the letter of the entire 7th Century Koran, as the radical Muslims insist, and live in a despotic society, be ignorant, poor, and be at the mercy of stronger and richer modern societies. The Ataturk Model can be intelligently engineered for an Islamic society by a group of people who understand that Model and have been given the job to make the drastic changes in that society. It is important that the country (perhaps the U.S.) that will be responsible for the implementation of the Ataturk Model makes a long-range commitment (perhaps for 50 years) that could not be upset by political changes in that country every presidential election. So, Islamic societies can be saved from themselves, but it would take a lot of doing and a lot of perseverance on the part of both the enforcing nation and the changing nation. I have no doubt that that will be worth doing for the sake of the peace and security of modern nations as well as for the good of the Islamic nations.

History Knows No Statute of Limitations
"Hitler is notorious more for mendacity than for truth telling"
Bruce Fein - History knows no statute of limitations, whether addressing the alleged Armenian genocide or otherwise. As Ataturk would have known, Napoleon's reputation in French textbooks and the popular media continues to change as regularly as the earth turns on its axis. Thus, the genocide claim must continually be answered with reason and persuasiveness, or else the proponents will win the historical debate by default.

A fair-minded examination of the evidence, both direct and circumstantial, acquits the Ottoman Empire of the Armenian indictment. The authoritative Genocide Convention of 1948 defines the crime of crimes as government sponsored or indulged killings of a group based on nationality, ethnicity, race, or religion with the intent to exterminate. Killings over political animosities, such as union or independence as in the United States Civil War, are not genocide because thought less morally squalid.

There seems slight if any plausible evidence that during the so-called Armenian genocide years (1915-23), the mutual wartime massacres between Ottoman Muslims and Armenian traitors and defectors to assist the Empire's enemies were inspired by any of the four categories enumerated in the Genocide Convention. Indeed, for long generations before World War I, Armenians were an officially favored religious minority withing the Empire, and occupied the highest civil offices and prospered financially. What inspired the favoritism to diminish were the repeated Armenian terrorist incidents against the Ottoman government beginning in the 1890's. The extremists hoped to provoke an overreaction by Ottoman authorities, which in turn was expected to arouse European intervention to secure an Armenian state or autonomy on the model of the "Bulgarian atrocities" as sensationalized by British icon William Gladstone. In sum, the overwhelming evidence points to political reasons for the mutual lethal tragedies between Ottoman Muslims and Armenians during World War I and its aftermath.

The gospel for the Armenian case, Ambassador Morganthau's Story, is unconvincing on several counts. First, the book collects only hearsay evidence. The Ambassador himself witnessed no atrocity. Second, his chief intellectual guru was an Armenian with an obvious bias against the Ottomans.

Third, not a single conversation with the Ottoman triumvirate indicates hostility towards Armenians but for their quest for political independence and defections to their wartime enemies, of which Armenian leaders boasted at the Paris Peace Conference. Fourth, the Ambassador never bugled for a

United States declaration of war against the Ottomans, which never came, an inexplicable reticence if he believed genocide against Armenians was afoot. Sixth, the United States State Department reported to British law enforcement officials under the Treaty of Sevres of 1920 and holding scores of Ottoman detainees suspected of war crimes on Malta the absence of incriminating evidence. In the view of the State Department, nothing Ambassador Morgenthau had assembled in his official capacity demonstrated guilt of indiscriminate Armenian massacres or sister war crimes.

Numerous oddities further undercut the Armenian genocide claim. Why have proponents stooped to forged telegrams and a counterfeit Russian painting if their evidentiary case were sound? Why has Armenia resisted talking its case to the World Court as authorized by Article IX of the Genocide Convention? Why have they hallowed Ambassador Morganthau's hearsay when their customary sound track is disbelief of anything said by a government official as propaganda? Why does the Armenian American community fiercely oppose any public classroom material or resources at variance with the Armenian genocide orthodoxy? Do they not believe that a free market place of ideas is the best instrument for separating truth from falsehood ever conceived or attempted? Why did the Ottoman government prosecute and punish more than 1,000 soldiers for killings and other atrocities against Armenians if the government genuinely applauded the grisly fruits of their labors? In contrast, Hitler uniformly laureled his henchmen complicit in the Holocaust.

The silver medal in the Armenian genocide pantheon belongs to Adolph Hitler, notorious more for mendacity than for truth telling. He purportedly said on the eve of the invasion of Poland in September 1939, as a harbinger of the Holocaust, who ever remembers the extermination of the Armenians. But no original source for the quotation has ever been identified, which prompted the Nuremberg Tribunal to deny its admission as evidence against Nazi's implicated in war crimes and the Holocaust. Moreover, the consensus among Third Reich experts is that Hitler did not embrace his "Final Solution" until 1942 at the Wannsee Conference outside Berlin. Until then, he was satisfied with mass deportation of Jews and less lethal forms of persecution. Furthermore, Hitler did not need an Armenian example to know how quickly the world forgets or ignores. German history had been stained by its genocide of the Herero natives in Southwest Africa (Namibia) in the early 1900s.

Finally, circumstantial evidence is generally more reliable than direct testimony because less vulnerable to bias, embellishment, or outright fabrication. Indeed, criminal justice veterans understand that identification evidence is the most unreliable, and has occasioned numerous injustices. And virtually all the circumstantial evidence militates againstthe Armenian genocide claim.

In debating the Armenian genocide allegation, we should take as our North Star James Madison's adage that knowledge will forever govern ignorance. And we should be prepared to debate with knowledge for the ages because the last chapters of hotly contested historical events are never written.

Constitutional scholar Bruce Fein is a well-known media personality and an ATAA Adjunct Scholar.

EU Caught Red-handed
"None of the EU countries are ready define the PKK as a terrorist organization"
Semih Idiz, Star (Turkey) - Nationalist Action Party (MHP) deputy Chairman Seket Bulent Yahnici is right in crying out that the exclusion of the PKK and DHKP-C from the new terrorist organizations list prepared by the EU is scandalous.

The four EU ambassadors I have spoken to on the issue were unable to supply any clear answer to my questions. Their main argument was that the decisions were arrived at by a consensus process in the EU and that if even one of the countries was opposed to it, no agreement could be reached on the subject. It doesn't take to be a genius to guess who has opposed defining the PKK as a terrorist organization. First of all, Greece can be cited as the main proponent of this view. However, the Greek stance must be viewed as a result of the eternal rivalry between our two countries. For example, sympathy for the Kosovo Liberation Force in Europe cannot be seen in Greece, which feels closer to that region's Serbs. Therefore, they can at least be regarded as honest in expressing their enmities. On the other hand, other countries can be classified under a group falling prey to their historical prejudices. Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands and Belgium can be put at the top of this list.

None of the officials or for that matter members of civil society in these countries I have spoken to are ready define the PKK as a terrorist organization. For them, this murderous organization is an "inevitable" phenomenon which emerged as a result of the desperate situation of the Kurdish people. In fact, they pronounce these opinions on the issue through a conditioned reflex. When they feel to be cornered, they say that these organizations are not committing any crimes on their territory. When asked, is not the IRA a phenomenon emerging from the desperate situation of the Northern Irish Catholics, they struggle to give answers through every means possible without realizing the hypocrisy they are showing.

The DHKP-C came into the spotlight with the prison hunger-strikes and its members immediately became people to be 'protected' from the Turks. In short, these countries have been caught red-handed. They have surrendered to their prejudices on issues which they cannot explain reasonably. What should Turkey do in view of these developments? I believe that those who excluded the PKK and DHKP-C from the list of terrorist organizations are trying to force Turkey to act illogically and thereby find an excuse for their own unreasonable behavior.

However, this stance cannot be accepted by all EU member states, as there are countries, which have banned the activities of the PKK and DHKP-C on their own territory. They are distressed right now not because of Turkey, but because they believe that the global war on terror led by the US will be weakened and could backfire due to these double standards. Washington is angry at the vacillating stance of the EU as it has excluded certain people and organizations defined as terrorists by the US. There is not a solid bloc against Turkey. There are countries like Britain, Germany and Spain which understand the situation Turkey is in. Therefore I believe that at every possible opportunity, Turkey should resolutely declare to the offending countries how wrongheaded their behavior is. This should be accomplished with the support of friendly, like-minded countries as well as constant pressure through diplomatic channels. Reason and ethics are the sources of our strength.

Why can not it be?
Gunduz Aktan, Turkish Daily News, January 9, 2002 - Criticizing Armenians who had joined the Turco-Armenian Reconciliation Commission (TARC), the Dashnak Party (ARF) and the ANC stated that they were against any dialogue with Turkey unless the latter recognized the Armenian genocide. They said that major breakthroughs had been reached for the recognition of the genocide in the French and Italian Parliaments, as well as the European Parliament; but not in the U.S. House of Representatives, which declined to recognize the genocide at the last minute, but the ARF and ANC said that with a little persuasion the entire world would recognize it and that Armenia would have a strong position in negotiating land and compensation with Turkey; however, they felt the TARC had prevented these developments.

As moderate Armenians, who are unable to rid themselves of these opinions, cannot support TARC, it is necessary to reiterate what those that represent the Turkish public can accept.

Certain members of the Turkish public have repeatedly uttered that the 1915-1916 events were a tragedy. Most of those supporting Turkish opinion noted that the number of Armenians who died during these events, varied from between 200,000 and 600,000. The Armenians lost their houses, jobs, monuments, and lands which they called their homeland. Families were divided. Wealth diminished. It is not that impossible for the Turkish public, 30-40 percent of which immigrated from the Balkans, to feel sympathy for the Armenians. However, there are also things that the Turkish people can never forget:

Does not everybody know that the Armenians have rebelled so many times since 1860 for independence in the name of reform and autonomy, as did the Balkan Christians; and that the Incak and Dashnak organizations were established with this aim, massacring civilian Turks in violent actions that would be defined as terrorism today; thus provoking the Turks to kill civilian Armenians in order to urge big powers to intervene in the issue. Not only Turks but also Armenians have said and written such facts.

Since 1830, it has been known that Russia transferred the Armenians from Anatolia and Iran to the Caucasus, while driving away the Turks and Muslims to Anatolia through ethnic cleansing.

During World War I, Armenian rebels fought in cooperation with the Russian Army, which invaded Anatolia, in order to gain their independence. They knifed Ottoman armies in the back. While their population constituted 16 percent of the total population in the region called Armenia, the ethnic cleansing that they applied to become the majority was very cruel for this reason. Are not these historical cases?

Was not the deportation decision taken for this purpose?

The deportation caused less harm when compared with the ethnic cleansing carried out by the Russians in the Caucasus and the Christians in the Balkans by attacking the Turkish civilian masses with their armies. The real deaths happened among those who escaped from the Russian and Ottoman armies in the eastern Anatolia region without taking any precaution. In this respect, is it a lie that 1,250,000 Turks and Muslims died according to German, Armenian and Ottoman sources?

In short, unlike the Jews, the Armenians formed a "political" group conducting military operations with political aims. Any crime can be committed against a civilian member of a political group, but these crimes can not be included in the scope of the "Genocide Convention". Moreover unlike anti-Semites, Turks had never intended to destroy Armenians because they were Armenians. According to the convention, this intention can only be present if there is a racial hatred. Contrary to the claims of the movie "Ararat," the Turks never hated Armenians.

Do the Armenians avoid applying the law for this reason? However, the Jewish genocide was judged at Nurenberg and recognized by the world. The Armenians convinced certain parliaments to recognize the genocide thesis with an artificial effort through lobby activities, to which they paid great quantities of money and threatened a refusal to vote prior to elections in these countries. Is not the difference so simple?

Mainly responsible for the deportation was the Dashnaks, who joined the Russians in carrying out ethnic cleansing against Turks with a 16 percent population. The only way to put the blame of this horrible responsibility on the Turks is through a genocide claim.

The Turks, 5 million of whom died in the Balkans and the Caucasus due to ethnic cleansing, and 5 million of whom were forced to migrate to Anatolia, cannot recognize a limited Armenian deportation as genocide when its experiences are forgotten.

Pivotal Country
Mustafa Balbay, Cumhuriyet - The new think-tank institution Strategic Research and Studies Center (SAREM) has a wide horizon which will significantly contribute to forming policies on national security issues. The statement made by Chief of General Staff Gen. H¸seyin Kivrikoglu at SAREM's inaugural ceremony underlined the significance of Turkey not only concerning its region, but also for the entire world. SAREM will gather together experts from all sectors, military and civilian and will be concerned with regions such as the Balkans, the Caucasus, the Middle East, Central Asian republics, Black Sea, Mediterranean, Aegean-Cyprus and Europe.

If Turkey's strategic partnership relations with the US are taken into consideration, it will be seen that Turkey is not a 'bridge country' as it is usually defined but rather a 'pivotal country.' The Balkan States have many organizations under the heading 'Southeastern Europe.' Turkey is a member of these organizations. Various cooperative agreements have been signed under these organizations, mainly among Turkey, Greece, Bulgaria and Romania. The Black Sea countries came together under the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC) and Turkey has hosted many of the group's meetings. The countries of the Caucasus don't have a bloc among themselves. In that small area there are many alliances and enmities. An alliance has been formed between Turkey,Georgia and Azerbaijan as opposed to the one between Iran, Armenian and Russia. Georgia is of great importance to Turkey's reaching Azerbaijan and Central Asia. In the troubled situation in the Middle East, the only country which can talk with both sides is Turkey.

The Mediterranean, which is the base of all civilizations, is in a state of disorder. However, there are many Mediterranean organizations ranging in subject from science to the environment. Turkey is a member of almost all of them. Our relations with Central Asian republics is being carried out at an institutional rather than personal level. Gen. Kivrikoglu stated that Turkey is a pivotal country both regarding the area it is in and the values it espouses. He added that many fault-lines also passed through Turkey, but that the country was working hard so that these fault lines do not crack open. In other words, Turkey is in a point left between many clashes and studies. This situation is sometimes an advantage and sometimes a disadvantage. The best way to be ready in countering these moves lies in information and foresight. SAREM is the product of a study made for catching up with the 21st century. All of society's sectors, starting with our politicians, should contribute to it.

; and that the Incak and Dashnak organizations were established with this aim, massacring civilian Turks in violent actions that would bedefined as terrorism today; thus provoking the Turks to kill civilian Armenians in order to urge big powers to intervene in the issue. Not only Turks but also Armenians have said and written such facts.

Since 1830, it has been known that Russia transferred the Armenians from Anatolia and Iran to the Caucasus, while driving away the Turks and Muslims to Anatolia through ethnic cleansing.

During World War I, Armenian rebels fought in cooperation with the Russian Army, which invaded Anatolia, in order to gain their independence. They

knifed Ottoman armies in the back. While their population constituted 16 percent of the total population in the region called Armenia, the ethnic cleansing that they applied to become the majority was very cruel for this reason. Are not these historical cases?

Was not the deportation decision taken for this purpose?

The deportation caused less harm when compared with the ethnic cleansing carried out by the Russians in the Caucasus and the Christians in the Balkans by attacking the Turkish civilian masses with their armies. The real deaths happened among those who escaped from the Russian and Ottoman armies in the eastern Anatolia region without taking any precaution. In this respect, is it a lie that 1,250,000 Turks and Muslims died according to German, Armenian and Ottoman sources?

In short, unlike the Jews, the Armenians formed a "political" group conducting military operations with political aims. Any crime can be committed against a civilian member of a political group, but these crimes can not be included in the scope of the "Genocide Convention". Moreover unlike anti-Semites, Turks had never intended to destroy Armenians because they were Armenians. According to the convention, this intention can only be present if there is a racial hatred. Contrary to the claims of the movie "Ararat," the Turks never hated Armenians.

Do the Armenians avoid applying the law for this reason? However, the Jewish genocide was judged at Nurenberg and recognized by the world. The Armenians convinced certain parliaments to recognize the genocide thesis with an artificial effort through lobby activities, to which they paid great quantities of money and threatened a refusal to vote prior to elections in these countries. Is not the difference so simple?

Mainly responsible for the deportation was the Dashnaks, who joined the Russians in carrying out ethnic cleansing against Turks with a 16 percent

population. The only way to put the blame of this horrible responsibility on the Turks is through a genocide claim.

The Turks, 5 million of whom died in the Balkans and the Caucasus due to ethnic cleansing, and 5 million of whom were forced to migrate to Anatolia, cannot recognize a limited Armenian deportation as genocide when its experiences are forgotten.

Cyprus: The Predictable Crisis
"The US has an important role to play in defusing the Cyprus time bomb before it explodes"
Philip H. Gordon and Henri J. Barkey, The National Interest, Winter 2001-2002 - Most international crises take leaders by surprise. While the region or issue that might blow up can often be identified in advance, the timing and contour of any particular crisis usually cannot. The coming dispute between Turkey and the European Union over the Mediterranean island of Cyprus, however, provides the rare opportunity of a coming crisis that can be pretty well scripted in advance. Barring significant new developments, none of which will come about without major outside intervention, the accession of the Greek part of Cyprus in 2004 to the European Union will trigger a severe crisis between Turkey and the West.

The crisis is set to begin, however, at the end of 2002, when the EU plans to issue invitations to prospective candidates. Unless something is done to alter the current course of events, the entry of a divided Cyprus into the EU will reverse much of the cooperation that has developed recently between Greece and Turkey, increase tensions on the island, further alienate Turkey from Europe and generally worsen Turkish domestic political conditions. The resulting crisis could lead to Turkish annexation of Northern Cyprus, the permanent division of the island, a deep rupture between an aggrieved Turkey and Europe, and a possible military confrontation between two NATO members.

Avoiding this all-too-likely scenario should be a high priority for U.S. and European policymakers, even as they rightly focus the bulk of their attention, political capital and foreign policy resources on coping with the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States. Indeed, whereas the natural tendency in the face of such an overwhelming new priority would be to push the seemingly eternal "Cyprus problem" to the back burner, the issue is both more pressing and more important than ever before. It is more pressing because of a timetable that has the EU set to announce Cyprus' accession sometime next year, even if Turkey's objections remain. And it is more important because a clash with Turkey over Cyprus, at a time when the United States is trying to sustain a global coalition against terrorism and fight wars in the Middle East, would deeply damage American national interests. Knowing this, of course, Turkey will be all the more likely to dig in its heels over Cyprus and expect Europe to back down.

The United States has an important role to play in defusing the Cyprus time bomb before it explodes. Whereas the EU naturally holds most of the highest cards (namely the accession timetable and economic incentives), the United States-as Turkey's most important strategic ally and an important partner of Cyprus, Greece and the rest of the EU-has significant leverage on all the parties involved. Leaders in Washington should avoid the temptation to dismiss Cyprus as an unnecessary irritant as they deal with more important issues, and instead use the long lead time before the coming crisis to take action. This means not only pushing hard to achieve a political settlement on Cyprus before accession (the optimal, if improbable, scenario), but also starting to prepare for the more likely scenario in which such a settlement is not reached and the EU enlarges to accept Cyprus without one. Only by pulling a range of strings with Turkey, Greece, Cyprus and the EU partners can this latter scenario be managed without producing the crisis that would otherwise inevitably result.

Philip H. Gordon is Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy Studies. Henri J. Barkey is Professor of International Relations, Lehigh University.

State Minister Gurel:"Turkey Does Not Want To Join EU Under All Conditions"
Turkey is the only country that joined the European Customs Union without being an EU member
Berlin, Nov 20 (A.A) - State Minister Sukru Sina Gurel said on Monday that if it is only the EU which determines the conditions, Turkey is not ready to join the EU, adding that ''Turkey does not want to join EU under all conditions. ''

Speaking about the ''Future of Turkey-EU relations in a symposium organized by Berlin Europe Academy, Gurel said that Turkey wants to join the EU, adding that this is not a one-way path.

Gurel said that Turkey fulfilled all of its obligations towards the EU, but the latter didn't do the same, adding that ''the EU would have given us 2 billion Euros to meet the losses stemming from the Customs Union. We've not received this money yet. Besides, we had to get 600 million Euros within the scope of fourth financial protocol. We didn't receive it either.''

Gurel said that Turkey was the only country which joined the customs union without being a member, noting that the other candidates became members and then joined the customs deal.

''EU which prepared for the future at the Nice summit didn't mention Turkey even once in its enlargement plans. If Turkey's joining the EU takes too much time, Turkey maybe will not want to take part in this new EU,'' Gurel said.

Noting that Turkey fought against terrorism with success, Gurel said that ''nobody supported us in our fight, even impediments were put. Despite that, we were able to win the fight against terrorism. Turkey is the first country which called for international cooperation and solidarity in the fight against terrorism.''

Gurel pointed out that if the EU takes into consideration Turkey's security interests, the latter is ready to make military cooperation with EU.

''Turkey is a NATO member, it permits allies to use NATO bases in Turkey, but Turkey is not included to the European Security and Defense Identity. This can't be accepted,'' he said.

Referring to the Cyprus issue, Gurel said that Turkey-EU relations and Cyprus issue have to be taken up separately.

The Cyprus question didn't start with the intervention of Turkey in Cyprus in 1974, but it started with the Greek Cypriots' starting the ethnic cleansing in 1963.

''Turkish Cypriots have always been isolated, exposed to the intense sanctions of the EU and not recognized,'' he said.

Greek Cypriots took Turkish Cypriots away from the cabinet, the parliament and their homes, he said. ''A plan to destroy Turks was prepared, Turkey intervened to prevent that and Turkish Cypriots declared TRNC in 1983,'' he said.

Turkey, Turkish Cypriots and also Former U.N. Secretary General Peres de Cuellar warned the EU about the issue and noted that Turkish Cypriots were not a minority and that the Greek Cypriots wouldn't wish to negotiate. ''Yet, the EU didn't listen to us. The EU will either continue its attitude or delay Cyprus's membership to the EU. If Greek Cypriot side is accepted to the EU as a member, the TRNC will assume a joint approach with Turkey,'' he said.