Turkey should support our effort to depose Saddam Hussein, but... February 23, 2002 Letters to the Editor, The Washington Times 3600 New York Ave. NE Washington, D.C. 20002 Assistant National Editor of Washington Times Jeffrey T. Kuhner is right in his assertion that Turkey should support our effort to depose Saddam Hussein ("Dethrone Saddam," OPED, 02/22/02). Turkey should have no fear of loosing territory to a Kurdistan that may result from breaking up Iraq into a Kurdish north, a Sunni middle and a Shiite south. Iraq is a synthetic country. It was one of the Arab countries artificially created by the victors of World War I when they broke up the Ottoman Empire. Iraqis had no say in drawing their own borders. The Turks, on the other hand, did not passively accept the piece of Anatolian territory they were doled out by the victors. They fought a fierce battle of independence against the victors of World War I to secure what they considered to be the Turkish homeland after the Ottoman Sultan had surrendered his empire by signing the Sevres Treaty in 1920. By 1923 the Turks had expelled the invading forces, created The Turkish Republic and set its borders by the Treaty of Lausanne which nullified the Treaty of Sevres. Since the people of Iraq had no say in founding the Iraqi State and setting its borders in the beginning, they should be given that opportunity now Mr. Kuhner is wrong, however, in his view that Turkey is concerned about its internal security as "a pretext to justify its abysmal human rights record." He is confusing the Marxist-Terrorist PKK with the peaceful Kurdish population of Turkey. The former has conducted terrorist attacks in Turkey from bases in Iraq and Syria (another artificial state carved from The Ottoman Empire) to establish a communist state in Eastern Turkey while pretending to speak for all ethnic Kurds. They were treated harshly by the Turks not because they happen to be Kurds but because they were ruthless communist instigators. Sincerely, Ali F. Sevin Washington, DC

"Half of the men drink, half of them go to the mosque," says Hakan Altindal, who was born in Altindag, or Golden Mountain. "Since there is no work, we have more time for religion."

Shanty houses crowd the deep gullies and steep cliffs in Altindag, a suburb on the slopes outside central Ankara, February 22, 2002. Many of the residents lost their jobs as a result of a massive financial crisis a year ago, which caused the worst recession in Turkey in decades. (Reuters)

Around a million people have lost their jobs since a financial crisis one year ago unleashed Turkey's worst recession in decades. The economy has shrunk by more than eight percent, forcing thousands of businesses into bankruptcy.

Inflation has shot up to 92 percent, and the lira currency has lost about half its value against the dollar. Per capita income has slipped to around $2,200 a year.

The new pro-Islamic Justice and Development (AK) party targets the class of "idle poor", those disenchanted with a government they believe has ignored their plight as it seeks to implement harsh International Monetary Fund-backed reforms.

Scorn for the government has given Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the 48-year-old former Istanbul mayor who heads AK, a shot at winning national elections scheduled for 2004. AK is leading in the opinion polls, and party leaders say if elections were held now they could get enough votes to single-handedly take power. "The government sank Turkey, and I am mad," says 22-year-old Altindal, who has been out of work for two months because he couldn't afford to renew his taxi licence. He now scavenges garbage dumps for tin and paper to support his wife and two-year-old daughter. "If we had elections tomorrow, I would give my vote to Erdogan," he says. "Everyone in this neighbourhood loves him."

GENERALS SCEPTICAL
The bedrock of AK's support lies in the shanty towns. The gecekondus, translated as "built overnight", lure hundreds of thousands of people each year from poverty-stricken villages. They erect shacks with concrete blocks, planks of rotting wood and cheap plaster. Stones hold down the sheet-metal roofs.

Altindag's shambling homes, painted in bold primary colours, crowd the deep gullies and steep cliffs. Horse-drawn carts carry goods past open sewers. In warmer months, women in headscarves sow potato and bean plants, while their children play in narrow, garbage-strewn streets.

Many of these erstwhile peasants are devout Muslims who have retained the conservative values of the countryside. They see the nearby halls of government as darkened by the shadow of corruption. The Islamists, they say, are the only honest men. The military, on the other hand, sees an unreformed radical in Erdogan.

Turkey, NATO's only Muslim member, has battled religious fundamentalism since the foundation of a secular republic in 1923. Powerful generals, who wield broad influence in civilian politics, are the self-appointed keepers of Turkish secularism.

The army has staged three outright coups since 1960 and in 1997 pressured Turkey's first Islamist-led prime minister, Necmettin Erbakan, out of office. His Welfare party, which had spurned Western institutions and talked of forming alliances with Islamic states, was later banned for sedition.

Welfare's successor Virtue was outlawed last June, and AK was one of two parties that emerged from its demise. More traditional Islamists are now grouped in the Saadet party.

MAN WITH A NEW MESSAGE
Jailed in 1999 on charges that he had "incited hatred" for reciting a poem considered rebellious, Erdogan has since tempered his rhetoric. AK is a centre-right grouping, he says, which backs Turkey's European Union candidacy and the International Monetary Fund's record $31 billion bailout.

He has made awkward overtures to the Turkish army and recently visited the United States, which may worry one of its staunchest Muslim allies could succumb to fundamentalism.

Last month Turkey's top court dealt a blow to Erdogan's political aspirations when judges ruled his conviction barred him from parliament, required if he is to become prime minister.

That ruling has only stirred empathy among the poor, says Cengiz Candar,columnist for the Islamist newspaper Yeni Safak.

"This party's leaders have been treated unjustly. Erdogan read a poem and was thrown in jail, members have had their parties closed several times,"

Candar says. "The poor also see themselves as unjustly treated by society. When they look at this party's leaders, they see themselves."

The ranks of Turkey's destitute are swollen enough to propel AK to power, says Ali Coskun, Erdogan's economic adviser. More than a third of Turks now live below the poverty line, earning less than $1.50 a day, according to state statistics.

"We come from the people, and we have not lost that attachment," Coskun says. "When (Erdogan) was Istanbul mayor, he solved people's basic problems, brought clean water to their faucets and heating oil to their homes.

"We believe for happiness... people must be saved from hunger and unemployment. Those in the gecekondus will not forget that we have not forgotten them."

But some Welfare and Virtue voters may not turn up at the polls for AK, says Candar. After Erbakan's short-lived term, many felt his disgraced experiment had betrayed their mandate.

"Voters are more cynical now after two parties were outlawed. People don't believe AK will be allowed to enter power," Candar says. "And if it is, they doubt anyone can really solve this country's mess."

"RELIGION KEEPS US PATIENT"
Songul Turkdogan, a 39-year-old widow, takes off her shoes and unties her head scarf when she enters her clean, sparsely furnished home in Altindag.

She and her five children share the two-room house with her nephew, his wife and their two children.

She feeds her family "people's bread", discounted loaves the city provides to the poor, and sends her oldest children to pick up discarded vegetables from the ground at the weekly market. She praises Ankara's Islamist mayor who dispatches vans to the neighbourhood, bringing residents cooking oil and flour.

"The government's stomach is full, while we go to bed hungry every night," she says. "We are religious people, so we just thank Allah for the little we have. Religion keeps us patient."

Turkdogan makes enough money cleaning neighbours' homes to send one child to school, but she cannot afford medicine for her diabetes. Six-year-old Doga's front teeth are black from rot.

On the walls hang pictures of her late parents, who brought her and her brother to Altindag when she was a child.

"Our father moved for a better life," Turkdogan says. "That hope was extinguished with us.

"If there are elections and we have a government that cares about the poor, maybe the light will shine again for us."

Ripe for a Democratic Revolution?
Bruce Fein - Iran seems ripe for a democratic revolution, like France groaning under King Louis XVI in 1789. At present, its government is like a house divided, with contending radical Islamic and democratic forces confronting each other in a precarious imbalance tilting towards the former. But little would be needed to reverse the scales, and thus eliminate Iran's threat to regional peace and security and support for terrorism. That feasible objective that should concentrate the minds and resources of America's national security and foreign policy engineers pondering President George Bush's axis of evil.

History speaks volumes. Iran has seriously flirted with popular government and western democratic customs since its 1906 Constitution. The courtship, however, has never flowered into an engagement ring or marriage as its government has lurched between constitutional monarchy checked by a popular parliament and absolutism reminiscent of King Louis XIV, famous for boasting that he and the French nation were synonymous. Foreign occupation by the Soviet Union, Britain, and the United States during World War II, Stalin's scheming to carve out an independent Azerbaijani government in 1946, the joint CIA-MI6 1953 covert-inspired overthrow of Prime Minister Mosaddegh for nationalizing foreign oil enterprises, and the Shah of Iran's pivotal 25-year enlistment of United States military support before toppling at the feet of Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979 have made Iranians semi-xenophobic and suspect of foreign meddling in domestic politics. The United States, thus, should by hyper-cautious in approaching Iran and its encouraging indigenous democratic throbbings.

On the heels of Khomeini's triumph, Iran embraced a theocratic Shiite republic bowing to Islamic principles and customs. That government emblem, however, was substantially artificial; its prime colors responded to popular Iranian wrath directed at the exiled Shah and Savak, his reviled and brutal security forces. The United States was perceived as the puppeteer of these twin instruments of Iranian oppression; thus, America's Tehran Embassy was selected by delirious Iranian youths manipulated by Khomeini and fellow ayatollahs for exuberant occupation and its personnel as hostages during a 444-day ordeal.

Violent revolutions, like that orchestrated by Khomeini, characteristically turn on their children. The extremism and revenge they sponsor are no answer to the daily common yearnings for food, clothing, shelter crowned with the dignity of individual freedom and liberty. Each revolution spawns its own ninth of Thermidor reaction. Thus, the initial crescendoes of applause for Khomeini and his offspring have turned to decrescendoes and even jeers, a transformation temporarily blunted by the patriotism evoked during the 1980-88 Iraq-Iran war. Iran's fanatical Shiite grandees, nevertheless, see the writing on the wall; they cling to power by force, violence and intimidation, the last refuge of scoundrels frightened of government by the consent of the governed.

As a constitutional matter, the fanatics still dominate the commanding heights. Their eviction will not be as effortless as running victory laps. The Head of State, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution and dictates to Iran's armed forces, Shiite gestapo, and a pliable judiciary. Khamenei also appoints six clerical members of a 12-member Council of Guardians. Six lay members of the Council are appointed by the head of the Khamenei-stacked judiciary, and are approved by the Majlis, the Iranian parliament. The Council serves as an Iranian revolutionary Praetorian Guard, and uniformly blocks Majlis legislation that chips away at religious bigotry and repression. The Council further screens Majlis candidates aiming to disqualify those with the effrontery of independent thinking.

The viciousness of Khamenei and his religious police is repeatedly on display before the Iranian people. Newspapers are closed. Editors are arrested. Satellite dishes are prohibited. Dissidents are assassinated. Parliamentary mavericks are prosecuted. Police torture and beatings are as commonplace as the rising and setting of the sun.

The terror, however, is not working. The Iranian people have stopped flinching. They are demanding more jobs, prosperity, and freedom. Most of Iran's 65 million population are unenthralled by the 1979 Khomeini revolution and uncharmed by maledictions hurled at the Shah of Iran or the CIA. The latter are faded or unknown historical curios to the post-Khomeini generation.

The high-voltage intensity of popular wrath at Khamenei and his myrmidons is verified by recent popular elections. Mohammad Khatami, a Kerensky-like symbol of reform and democracy, has been twice elected president by stupendous majorities despite omnipresent Shiite intimidation and ballot manipulations. Political reformers and moderates were also landslide victors in the February 2000 Majles election. Widespread defiance of dress codes and first cousin decrees regulating every nook and cranny of behavior has proven irrepressible. No nation's history, however, is written in the stars. To paraphrase Cassius to Brutus in Julius Caesar, the people of any nation can become masters of their fate. All that is needed is courage and resolution. Ataturk and the Republic of Turkey are exemplary. Will democratic forces ultimately prevail in Iranian? The odds are in favor, although the triumph may come as unexpectedly as the fall of the Berlin Wall or disintegration of the Soviet Union.

To increase the odds, the United States should add carrots to complement its current Iranian foreign policy sticks: namely, offering handsome trade, aid, and investment assistance as soon as Iran turns a democratic and human rights leaf. And equally if not more important, the United States should publicize its admiration of Iranian dissidents who are risking that last full measure of devotion so that the living and those Iranians yet to be born may taste the sweetness of freedom. East and Central European democratic icons, like Czech Vaclev Havel, tell us such moral support during the Cold War sustained their will to endure no matter how bleak the circumstances.

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

Swedes & The Double Standards
Mahmut Esat Ozan, The Turkish Forum [excerpts] - ITEM-The European Union Parliament adopted a resolution which called on EU-candidate Turkey to "create basis of compromise" in the face of Armenian "genocide" accusations, during its General Assembly meeting recently. The resolution was introduced as part of a caucus report, prepared by a Swedish member of the Parliament, Per Gahrton. In its decision, the EU asked Turkey to take steps in line with its desire to become a European Union member. The Swedish member of the EU Parliament, Per Gahrton, said that the resolution should also recall the previous 1987 EU decision which had recognized the Armenian genocide and had also called upon Turkey to recognize it.

ITEM- Even though it is simply a Turkish domestic judicial matter, in which EU has no right to interfere, the same Swedish member of the Parliament, Per Gahrton, is of the opinion that Turkey could advance in its EU membership process only if it respects basic human rights and fully implements the Copenhagen criteria regarding the HADEP investigation case, the Kurdish-affiliated Peoples Democracy Party.

ITEM- A book written by a former Consul General to Turkey, Kaj Falkmen, entitled "Sweden and Turkey" whose preface was prepared by the present Prime Minister of Sweden and approved by the current Swedish Ambassador to Turkey, has caused quite a stir in the Turkish capital Ankara. This publication, which is also sanctioned by the "Swedish Institute" is replete with scurrilous misinformation and out and out lies claiming that the Ottoman Turks had massacred 1.5 million Armenians. The accusations and claims are totally false and are refuted by the Turkish government. In view of the fact that neither the Swedish Government nor their representatives in Ankara have seen it fit to offer an apology or to give an explanation of how such an enormous gaffe could have been made, and could have gone without an attempt to rectify it, seems to be beyond comprehension.

ITEM- Sweden's Sivan Perwer,(Artist and Musician), and Swedish citizen and Kurdish linguist and scholar of literature, Mehmet Emin Bozarslan, placed their names alongside other obscure scientists such as Fettah Timar (teacher of Kurdish Language, Chairman of Komkar ,Germany), Danielle Mitterrand, (Chairperson of the Foundation France Liberte, France) the Dutch Historian , Dr. Martin van Bruinessen, (Lecturer on Cultures of the Orient,) Dr. Phil Tove Skutnabb - Kangas, (Lin-

guist and Lecturer, University Roskilde, Danemark,) Victor Boll, (Scholar of Literature and Director of the Heinrich Boll Archive, Germany), to have the Turkish Republic amend its constitution and accept the Kurdish language as a teaching tool in their curriculum, in order to eliminate the measures taken by the Turkish government.

This is not a selective example of the double standard Swedes demonstrate once in a while . It is in fact part of and parcel a daily antipathy displayed toward the Turks. It is rather painful to admit but the Swedes mistreat quite often the Turkish minorities living and working in their country. Most Swedish people, with the omission of a few, are willingly siding with the detractors of Turks.

The Swedish writers are no exception to this rule. A day does not go by that a nasty attack is not read on the highly unfair Turcophobic Swedish press. When a Kurdish father killed his daughter, to cleanse the honor of the family, because of the daughter's association with a non-Muslim young man, every Swedish newspaper and periodical had a field-day concerning the event, even a high-ranking member of the Swedish royal family attended the funeral.

The Swedish Press started writing ugly diatribes against the Turks without investigating the ethnic heritage of the father. The "backward, uncivilized" Turks, and their "antiquated social customs" were on the headlines for days, because the Kurdish perpetrator of the crime and his whole family had entered Sweden and were given political asylum, by the Swedish government. They were carrying the passport of the Republic of Turkey, the country from which he and his family were escaping

Pseudo-intellectuals
The truth is that what aggravates the problem is the unfair and unjust attitude of these pseudo-intellectuals. When the curricula of the countries represented by these individuals are examined, one finds no indication in their curriculum which emphasizes the mother tongue of their minorities. The six signatories are 2 from Sweden, Germany and France, Netherlands, and Denmark where no record of such procedure of teaching native languages exists.

There are more than 7 million people of diverse nationalities existing in Germany, France, Denmark, Holland, as well as in Sweden. They all work hard for a mediocre living and send their children to the schools of those countries where they reside as a labor force or in some cases local citizens with a second class calibration. It is doubtful, for instance, that when Holland which has additionally thousands of nationals of their old colonial empire which make up today's Indonesia, no Asiatic child from Java gets educated in Javanese, or from Bali is taught in Balinese in Holland, instead of the Dutch language. Can you imagine a German school teaching Serbian or Croatian or Turkish to their ethnic students? It is common knowledge that Germans are trying to force the Turkish kids to learn about their Muslim religion exclusively in German. Do you think it is feasible for any French elementary or secondary school gearing its nationalistic curricula and begin to replace them with Arabic for the Algerians and Creole for Haitians and Senegalese for the thousands of former colonials residing all over their country? What kind of mother's tongue is used for the millions of Basques, Portuguese, or Spaniards working in many other countries of Europe, especially in an ethnocentric place like Sweden?

Then why are the Turkish government and the Turkish nation always badgered with this type of unfairness? What is the reason why the Turks are held to an unfair standard? Let's conclude this essay by a hypothesis and a reasonable postulation:

Had the Ottoman Turks followed the ways of the repressive British, as in India, or the chauvinistic nationalistic French, in Algeria, Tunisia, or Morocco or the likes of Leopold II of Belgium who butchered close to 10 million blacks in Belgium's colonies and summarily transferred the Congo, from his private possession since 1885, to the glory of his tiny Belgium, things would have been quite different today. If the Ottoman rulers had inculcated into their Ottoman subjects their own culture, religion and especially their own language, one half of Europe and Africa today would be reading the Koran and conversing in Turkish. As it is today in old European colonies in Africa everyone is either Catholic or Protestant and no other language but French, English or Portuguese are spoken. If the Ottomans had behaved in the same way, instead of granting every nationality in their realm freedoms galore, and rule their empire untold centuries in peace, they would have never become the subject of a European style impertinent and humiliating discourse !

The author can be reached at meozan@aol.com

The Coming of Iraq War
M. Orhan Tarhan - The war in Afghanistan to eradicate the Taliban and the Al Qaeda is still going full steam and it is hard to say when it will be finished. But when that moment will come, the second phase of the "New War" will begin. No one doubts that, that phase will be Iraq.

Mehmet Ali Birand reports in Hurriyet that the Turkish government is now discussing how the Post-Saddam Iraq should be organized. This is odd, because Mr. Ecevit was insisting until very recently that "an attack on Iraq should be out of the question." The Kurdish leader Talabani was invited to Ankara for exchange of views. Talabani suggests (rightfully so) that since Turkey cannot afford to stay neutral during the next Iraq war, it is nonsense to do nothing by wishing that the attack will never take place. It is better to be ready for the attack., whether one likes it or not. He does not mean being ready militarily. He means being ready to discuss the aftermath of the war, now. Birand thinks that this is a realistic approach. Talabani offers to make a place for the Turkomans in the new Kurdish government and thus accommodates the Turkish concerns.

If the territorial integrity of Iraq is preserved, that is if there will be only one state, Iraq, the Kurds want to have their place in the new Iraq Parliament. They want to prevent that Saddam is replaced by an other dictator. They want real democracy in Iraq., this time.

If, on the other hand, the territorial integrity is not preserved and a Kurdish State is formed, Kurds want to stay in good terms with Turkey and they want to discuss probable questions that might arise then, right now. This attitude of the tribal Kurds seems to be perfectly logical to me and I wonder why the Ecevit government is not that logical. An article by Ali Ferda Sevin in the previous issue of the Turkish Times, titled "A Home For The Kurds" states that Turkey should not be afraid of a new Kurdish State in North Iraq. This is also precisely what I suggested in one of my previous articles, if the Turkish state learns to treat its citizens in the East decently..

Mr.Talabani is by far not my ideal politician. He and Barzani have been fighting like cats and dogs, instead of cooperating together and working toward the building of a Kurdish society, in Northern Iraq, that they are aspiring to. Mr. Talabani is still behaving occasionally more like a tribal chieftain than a national leader. So, when the same Mr. Talabani has an approach that I find much more reasonable and realistic than the wishful thinking approach of the Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit, I feel terrible. At a time when President Bush is defining the three terrorist states Iraq, Iran, and North Korea as the Axis of Evil, and every TV news in this country is talking about Iraq's Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction, to say that "An attack on Iraq should be out of the question" is just unrealistic. Is he taking about the same Iraq? Is there another Iraq? An attack on Iraq is not only "Not out of the question", but it is practically the whole question. Mr. Woolsey [former CIA director] has been saying that every day we delay attacking Iraq, we are playing with the lives of people. Of course he is not talking about American people, who are quite far away, but about Turkish people and Israeli people, who are the nearest targets. Completely ignore such intense preparations of a superpower-ally, and wish that nothing of that sort should happen, is a dangerous escape from reality, and not the logical action that a prudent prime minister should take. Some people who are experienced in the Byzantine intrigues of foreign policy dealings guess that Mr. Ecevit's "An attack on Iraq is out of the question" statement was just for the benefit of Turkey's Iraqi neighbors. The U.S. knows that Turkey will be with the U.S. when the time comes. It was a sort of excuse to old neighbors. If that is so, I believe it is a poor excuse. I am sure, Saddam will see through such a Byzantine ruse. If the Iraqi population is happy with Saddam, they deserve him and I would not make any excuse. If the population is unhappy with Saddam but has to endure him, then they should like to see Turkey trying to deliver them from Saddam. So, no excuse would be needed again. Thus, it appears that, if this is a Byzantine intrigue, it is not a very intelligent one..

I would not doubt that the Turkish military would have their preparations for any eventuality, no matter what the prime minister would dream. Still they could not put their plans into practice without the green light from the prime minister.

During his political life, Mr. Bulent Ecevit made some good decisions, and some very bad ones. The landing of Turkish troops on Cyprus in 1974 was a very good decision. Then, after being given hell by the President Ahmet Necdet Sezer for failing to combat corruption, he left the room and declared to the press "This is a crisis" thus, he created a crisis that suddenly made the Turkish people 40 % poorer. That was the most horrible decision he made. Now, his escaping from reality in the face of an imminent attack on Iraq by the U.S. to topple a dangerous dictator, who is about to have atomic capability next door to Turkey, is developing as a second unforgivable blunder.

Turkey's EU Saga
David Barchard, Special for The Turkish Times - Round about 1690 William Penn, a relative of the founder of Pennsylvania, designed a theoretical parliament for Europe. It was to have 90 members and of course, then as now, Germany got the largest share, twelve. But Penn was a far-sighted man and he envisaged contingents from both Russia and Turkey - ten members each.

The European Union at its Nice Summit in December 2000 unfortunately showed itself to be about 310 years behind Penn. It declined to make any allocations for Turkey in its plans for its future institutional structure. Yet the EU's official position is that Turkey is a candidate for eventual accession, even though negotiations have yet to start. and until they do, Turkey's eventual membership is not guaranteed.

Instead the European Union is poised to admit Greek southern Cyprus as a full member, probably in the next two years. The Commission has insisted on the meticulous fulfilment of democratic political criteria for the Turkish application. But for the Greek application, it somehow felt able to overlook the fact that the Greek Cypriots do not control about a third of their territory and their rule has been rejected for over a quarter of a century by the Turkish Cypriots.

EU national leaders also feel able to overlook the fact that, on any commonsense reading of their wording, the Greek Cypriot application violates the 1960 Cyprus treaties and that the Greek Cypriots have made no secret about the fact that they will copy Athens in using their membership as a weapon about Turkey. And not necessarily just a political weapon. This week Greece again announced its unhappiness over the deal thrashed out between the EU, NATO, and Turkey on European defence which essentially prevents a future European force being deployed against Turkey.

Meanwhile Greece's other weapon - its threat to bring the EU to a shuddering halt if the Greek Cypriot application is blocked - has not received one word of public criticism, either from European leaders or the Commission. Yet isn't this blackmail by any other name? So why has there not been a chorus of indignation?

I don't believe that this is a product of irrational Hellenophilia. When north European leaders think about Turkey (and they tend to do this very much less than they do about Poland, simply because of history) they do vaguely realise that good relations with a country of 67 million may be more important to their national interests than relations with a statelet of 650,000.

But inside the EU, things are fixed by late night deals in smoke filled rooms between bleary eyed ministers from member states on an equal basis. If one member state determined to push its interests, its delegation makes sure that everyone stays up all night until it gets its way. What is more, there is no code of conduct for members, and no way of disciplining or even criticising a delinquent member on political and procedural issues.

No surprise then that so many of my Turkish friends are seething at the "Ugly Europeans" and all their works. For a start, many of them are physically locked out of Europe by tough visa restrictions. If they do manage to get there, they find that all Turkey's foes, from Islamist politicians to Marxist terrorists seem to be darlings of the media, and that European academics and journalists are endlessly fertile in inventing new causes to defend - the latest and silliest of which is a campaign on Turkey's "Georgian minority."

There is of course also a long list of practical problems in EU Turkish relations, many going back two decades. It is not difficult to see why so many people feel both confused and angry, as well as rejected. But the EU has been around nearly half a century. The moment you date Turkey's problems to the just last two decades, it should be pretty obvious what their cause is. Since 1981, Greece has been in every one of those smoke-filled late night meetings but Turkey has not.

Till Turkey gets into those meetings - as in my view it is fully entitled to do - it will never get a fair deal. Walking away from the table will make matters much worse.

Remember, the EU is by far Turkey's largest trading partner and it is very hard to imagine that a time will ever come when it will not be. The Arab and Russian economies may yield lucrative business, but they are far smaller.

Turkey's enemies in the EU have hoped for years that the Turks will give up, go away, and withdraw their membership application and remove the chance of the country playing on equal terms. Those effortless defeats in the smoke-filled rooms would probably carry on for ever and William Penn's vision of 1690 would be replaced by a permanently divided continent.

David Barchard is a UK-based journalist and research consultant and one of Britain's best known specialists on Turkey. He is the author of three studies on Turkish-European relations. He can be reached at 101674.1307@compuserve.com

Lonely Turkish Cypriots long for prosperity
Gokhan Tezgor, NICOSIA (Reuters) - Decades of international isolation and economic stagnation have left Turkish Cypriots longing for change but officials and observers say that will not make them accept a solution to Cyprus's division at all costs.

Greek Cypriot President Glafcos Clerides and Turkish Cypriot leader Rauf Denktas are holding intensive talks aimed at resolving a stalemate on the island that has been divided since 1974 when Turkey [intervened] in response to an Athens-backed Greek Cypriot coup.

The self-declared Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) is shunned by the international community and recognized only by Ankara. There are no direct flights to it except from Turkey, trade faces numerous obstacles and foreign investors prefer to stay away rather than risk the wrath of Greek Cypriots.

"The club of unrecognized states is not a nice place to be," says Ahmet Aker, undersecretary at northern Cyprus's economy "ministry." "It brings all the other evils associated with the other members of the club," he said.

As well as economic isolation, Turkish Cypriots deeply resent restrictions in areas such as sports and cultural exchanges.

For years Denktas, backed by Ankara which bankrolls the breakaway enclave, has called for an end to the embargo and the issue will be an important element of the current talks.

The search for a solution has been given greater urgency by the Republic of Cyprus's fast-approaching entry into the European Union, something Turkish Cypriots too hanker after.

Denktas himself added to that urgency by revealing Wednesday that he may have to undergo heart surgery in the coming months.

"My doctors' advice is that within the next six to 12 months I should give serious thought to heart surgery," Denktas, 78, told Reuters, saying the diagnosis coincided with his decision to ask Clerides, 82, to begin face-to-face talks in January.

"That is why I said from the beginning, without disclosing this problem, that June is a convenient time to finish everything that we can,"Denktas said.

MANY MOTIVES
Greek Cypriots are hoping that the prospect of millions of euros of EU aid for Turkish Cypriots if a reunited Cyprus joins the bloc, plus an end to the isolation, will be an incentive for Denktas to compromise in some areas and reach a solution.

The per capita income in the Greek south is nearly four times higher than in the Turkish north.

But Jonathan Stevenson of the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London said economic considerations were not the strongest motive at play.

"It's a factor because I think the people of the TRNC really want greater prosperity and that would certainly be a very major motivation of virtually all the opposition parties," he said.

"I think it's a standing concern and an ultimate objective even of Denktas to take Turkish Cypriots out of the international dog house and make economic conditions better."

"But I think Denktas, when it came time for his election, was able to conjure up visions of Greek Cypriot ethnic cleansing that trumped all of those considerations," Stevenson said.

One of Denktas's advisers who declined to be identified said that while he recognized the economic incentives to finding a solution, that was not the priority. "Everyone realizes the benefits the EU offers, especially economically, but the main issue which concerns us is security and a system of guarantees when taking into consideration what has happened on the island in the past," he said.

Bitter fighting between the Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities was the defining characteristic of the period leading up to the Turkish [intervention] and both sides accuse each other of atrocities.

TURKEY SUPPORTS NORTH WITH CASH
Aker said economic growth in recent years had been limited to two or three percent at most and northern Cyprus was running a large budget deficit. Cash from mainland Turkey allows the north to survive.

"This is not because we cannot produce but we cannot sell what we produce," Aker said. "Therefore the country does not produce enough revenue for its citizens or revenue in the form of taxes for the government. It's a vicious circle."

Potatoes used to be a major export item for the north with capacity to produce around 20,000 tonnes a year, Aker said.

In 1994 the European Court of Justice ruled that commodities exported from the north must be accompanied by a certificate of health from the Greek Cypriot authorities.

"In effect we were stopped from exporting these commodities to Europe," Aker said.

Textiles and citrus fruit exporters face the same problem, having to send their produce through Turkey which raises the cost. Most citrus crops from northern Cyprus are now shipped to Eastern Europe at low prices or sold less profitably for juice.

Ali Erel, head of the Turkish Cypriot Chamber of Commerce, said it was essential that any solution should bring an end to the embargo and help businesses in the north close the gap with the prosperous south of the island.

"What we understand from a settlement is of course a political settlement together with membership of the EU," Erel said. "The basic rule before entering the EU is that we should be able to have an economy that can compete." "At the moment we are not in a position in which we will be able to compete," he said.

Turkey currently subsidizes northern Cyprus, announcing last year it would inject $350 million over three years. The financial support is as important for Turkish Cypriots as the 30,000 Turkish troops stationed on the island.

"We can rely on Turkey in terms of monetary support but we don't want to have a society that lives on a hand-out. We want to be able to produce and sell," Aker said.