"Since the end of the Cold War, the biggest threat to European welfare is terrorism from the Middle East, said Rainer Hermann, the Middle East and Turkey correspondent for the German daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.


Based in İstanbul for 15 years, Hermann said Europe does not have the choice of rejecting Turkey if it wants to contain the terrorism threat because Turkey produces security. “If Turkey were excluded, it would act outside the mechanisms of the EU, and the EU would lose any kind of influence beyond NATO.”
As for the discussion of whether or not Turkey should choose between the EU or the Middle East, Hermann said, Europe and the Middle East were no alternatives but rather complemented each other. “Turkey won back the Arabs' faith because they now perceive the government of AK Party as well-functioning Muslim democrats.”
Hermann said the perception of Arabs about Turkey has changed when the Turkish parliament refused on March 2003 to allow the deployment of US troops in Turkey for war with Iraq. “The authoritarian Arab governments said yes to the American invasion of Iraq. Arabs realized that Turkey is lead by Muslim democrats.” Arabs and Turks today have a mutual interest in each other, according to Hermann: “Turkey understands if it wants to have leverage in Europe and in the West, it must present a strategic asset: to have a positive role in the Middle East.”

Was it your preference to be based in İstanbul as a journalist?
Definitely. During the summer of 1982, when I was a student, I came to İstanbul for an internship. Even back then I said I would like to live in this town with its unique history, its magnificent skyline, its friendly people. It came true.
What did you think about Turkey before first coming here 15 years ago?
In those days, in Germany, Turkey was not as controversial as today. Today the EU accession process of Turkey has polarized (German) views. Turkey missed a chance in the late 1970's when the EU asked Greece and Turkey to start membership negotiations on the same day. Greece accepted, and then Prime Minister Bülent Ecevit declined. If Turkey would have accepted, it would be much stronger today. In the past 15 years İstanbul has lost some of its "oriental" charm and has become much more modern, also much greener.
How do you see Turkey today?
Over the past few years, Turkey has made a big leap forward. The big changes always occurred not with center-left parties, but with center-right parties. In the '80s the economic reforms of the late Turgut Özal opened Turkey. These reforms are being continued on a political level by the government of Tayyip Erdoğan. Turkey became a member of the globalized world. That opened the way to ideological conflicts inside Turkey. On one hand, there are those who are against privatization and foreign direct investment, against Turkey being integrated into the world. On the other, there are those who want to have an open, tolerant Turkey with a strong civil society.
When Turkey has any problems with the European Union, Turkish people start discussing how Turkey should approach the Middle East. When Turkey experiences problems with the Middle East, then there is discussion about how Turkey should approach Europe instead. Does it have to be one way or the other?
Both complement each other and should not be separated. A Turkey that is rejected by Europe because of its bad human rights record and the deficiencies in its democracy will not be accepted by the countries of the Middle East. To them, Turkey only makes a difference when Turkey can show that it is ahead of them in a variety of issues. For the EU, the more important Turkey is, the more its influence can be felt in the Middle East. Therefore, the EU and the Middle East are not alternatives, they complement each other.
How do you think the EU would benefit from Turkey's entry to the union?
One benefit is an increase in security with the role Turkey plays in the Middle East. Turkey is not necessarily a model to be copied, but an example for the authoritarian Middle Eastern countries with Muslim populations which shows them what is possible for Muslims. If states are democratic and give fair chances to every citizen, then the youth is less inclined to engage in terrorism. Turkey produces security, also on the level of the military. Therefore Turkey should sit as a member at the table of the EU. If Turkey were excluded, it would act outside the mechanisms of the EU. Left outside Europe, Turkey could become an ally with Russia, or with this and that Arab country, or even with a moderate Iran, or even get closer with Israel. The EU would lose any kind of influence beyond NATO. Security also means security for energy. This became a topic in Europe when Russia cut off gas to some consuming countries. Today, Europe is interested in diversifying its energy supplies and securing the transit routes. Many important energy routes pass through Turkey to Europe. This shows that Europe is interested in a stable Turkey that is not torn apart by domestic conflicts and that does not become part of regional conflicts, but that is a stable part of the EU.
In general, Turkish people think this can be achieved only through full membership in the EU, and the Turks are very emotional about it. Yet there are different levels of relationships discussed in Europe regarding Turkey.
Europe is changing its identity every decade, and every change has been caused by external factors. By this, Europe has grown from a union of six countries to a union of 27. This is not the end. Of course, the EU of 27 can never be like the EU of six or an EU 15. An EU of 15 was, to my understanding, the utmost level where the members could have achieved a deeply integrated common state. The bigger Europe is, the less it works as a state and a nation state as we understand it today, and the more it shows features of "empires." Look at the Roman Empire, the Austrian Empire of the Habsburg dynasty, or the Ottoman Empire. An empire is not governed as a nation state with all laws and decrees applied at every corner in the same way, but with a big degree of flexibility. I see the EU developing in this direction. This should not create the impression that a country should choose this ingredient and reject another one. There still should be a strong cohesion. But the EU has already institutions in which some members are participating and some are not, like with the Euro or with the Schengen visa. This process will continue.
What does that mean for Turkey?
his means Europe will grow from a concept of "state" into a concept of "empire" -- not an empire in the negative historical sense. Rather in the sense what we have seen in the vast Ottoman Empire and the Roman Empire. Also in the understanding of a big Europe as a region for peace and prosperity, in contrast to a culturally homogeneous, but small Europe. As this process continues, the quality of membership changes. Membership today is different from membership in the early phase of European integration. The common legal corpus of the Acquis Communautaire grows every year, and with the growing number of members the need for compromises grows, too.
What should the EU do?
Europe is facing a new external threat originating in the Middle East. From there the oil comes, but also terrorism, illegal migration and drugs. Following the end of the Cold War, this is the greatest external threat to Europe's peace and welfare. To keep this threat from Europe, you have to do something: take Turkey in! Europe does not have the choice to reject Turkey if it really wants to contain the Middle East threat.
Turkey also wants to be a leader or a role model in the Middle East. How do the Middle Eastern countries see Turkey in this regard?
There had been several eras of relations between Turks and Arabs. First, the colonial or Ottoman era. Arabs were part of the Ottoman Empire, but Arabs perceived the Empire as a colonial power. I have an anecdote: When Turkish Airlines started its regularflights to Sanaa, the capital of Yemen, there was a story in the on-board magazine of THY on Yemen, written by a Yemeni intellectual. In the text there was a reference to the "colonial Ottoman time." This word went unnoticed into the magazine. Too late, the editors discovered it. Then they put a sticker on the word "colonial" in every copy. This anecdote illustrates the disdain of the Arabs against their Turkish rulers. The second era was the 20th century. Both sides established their nation states and an epoch of mutual disinterest started. The Turks turned their back to the common culture and history with the Arabs; they abolished the caliphate and the Arabic alphabet. Turkey became a member of NATO and had relations with Israel. Just the opposite of the Arab world. A famous Tunisian intellectual went through the libraries of the Arab world and counted how many Ph.D. dissertations had been written in 20th century modern Turkey on the Kemalist Turkey. He found only a handful. His count showed the disinterest of the Arabs in what was going on in Turkey.
How is the situation now?
Today we have a new era of mutual interest. Turkey understands if it wants to have leverage in Europe and in the West, it must present a strategic asset: to have a positive role in the Middle East, the most problematic area for Europe. On the other hand, Arabs discovered that the Turks have changed. It started in the '90s, and later the AK Party government came to power. Till then the Arab media hardly took notice of what happened in Turkey. They only reported when there was a military deal between Turkey and Israel, which means a negative story for the Arabs. But from 2002 on, they started to report on a daily basis and positive aspects -- political reforms and the economic boom for example. They started to show interest in the governments of Gül and Erdoğan. This kind of interest never existed under the governments of Çiller and Yılmaz, Demirel and Ecevit.
Why was that?
Today the Arabs say, "Look, there are pious Muslims and successful democrats in the government." This led the Arab people to reconsider their concept of Turkey. The main episode which changed the Arab perception of Turkey was the decision of the Turkish Parliament in March 2003 not to allow the US army to transit to Iraq. The authoritarian Arab governments, however, said yes to the American invasion of Iraq. Turkey said no. The Arabs recognized that a democratic Turkey was able to reject the American request, and they realized that Turkey is lead by Muslim democrats. So they asked themselves: "What's gone wrong with us, and what are they doing right?"
Do you think they are ready to accept Turkey as a role model?
The weight of history is still too heavy to hold Turkey as a model which could be copied by another. But the Arabs realize that Turkey is an example of what is possible: To keep faith and the Muslim creed, but at the same time being a true democrat.
Have you seen that expressed?
When I talk to members of the Muslim Brotherhood, they always ask me what is going on in Turkey and what could be relevant to them. They are interested in questions such as: "How do they succeed in being elected democratically, how do they stay in power, how do they get along with a strong army, how do they get the majority of the population's support, etc." The secular director of a leading think-tank in Cairo argued that the AK Party government does not, contrary to the Muslim Brotherhood, say that "Islam is the solution." He attributes the success of AK Party to a new pragmatic and creative approach. A Kuwaiti leftist liberal intellectual told me: "We, the secular intellectuals of the Arab world, are afraid that the EU could refuse Turkey as a member on the basis of cultural and religious differences; that would give a boost to our radical Islamists, and they would argue that moderation is not paying off as the case of Turkey shows." So both sides, the secular intellectuals and the Islamists, have an interest in what is going on in Turkey.
Do you think AK Party members are perceived as good enough Muslims as compared to other Middle Eastern leaders in the region?
Indeed, they are. For example, to put it in the light of Turkey's relations with Israel: The AK Party government wants to have a role in the region. You only can mediate between the conflicting parties when you have the trust of all parties. Erdoğan and his government succeeded in keeping the trust of Israel, at the same time they won back the trust of the Arabs. They won back the trust of the Arabs because the Arabs perceived this government as one of Muslim democrats.
Do you think Turkey can manage to be a mediator in the region?
The world has become so interactive that it became credible to act on both sides: to be part of the European family and to have a say in what is going on in the Middle East. Turkey brings creative ideas into a region which is missing these or unable to produce them itself. Erdoğan managed to bring together in İstanbul the foreign ministers of Pakistan and Israel. Turkey needs to continue on this path. Egypt is not willing to do any kind of mediation for Israel, Jordan is too small. Within the Muslim world, only Turkey can fulfill this mission. It took the Arabs painfully long to realize that the state of Israel has a right to exist, and that peaceful coexistence is the way, not violence. Of course, there had been some cold years with Israel in the first years of AK Party government. One reason was that Sharon refused to accept Erdoğan's offer to mediate. Later Sharon realized that Israel could only win if Erdoğan managed to build bridges to the Muslim world. In the early years of the Erdoğan government, Erdoğan criticized Israel as a terrorist state. He was not the only one to do so. Ecevit had said the same, many in Europe, too. You can't therefore say this criticism might be a legacy of an "Islamic" party. Of course, as a Muslim, Erdoğan most probably has more sympathy for the Palestinians than for the Israeli government. But he is wise enough to be an honest mediator. If you are a friend you can criticize, and you can have a positive role. That is the case".

Interview with Rainer Hermann, Today's Zaman, 19.02.2007

"The EU has opened a new stage of membership talks with Turkey, three months after imposing a partial freeze.
The two sides started talks in a second of 35 policy areas, which Turkey has to complete - showing that it meets EU standards - before it can join the EU.

Last December the EU froze talks in eight areas, calling on Turkey to open its ports to Cypriot ships.

Turkey said on Thursday that it would announce plans next month to carry out all the necessary reforms anyway.

"We will be announcing a programme by which we will be continuing our reforms and this programme will cover all the 35 chapters, even those chapters which will not be opened because of issues... relating to Cyprus," said Turkey's EU negotiator, Ali Babacan.

'Intransigence'

The EU's December decision to slow down membership talks also stipulated that no chapters of the talks would be completed until Turkey allowed Cypriot ships into its ports, and Cypriot aircraft into its airports.

We will not be able to make progress on the ports and airports issue unless the isolation comes to an end

Ali Babacan
But Mr Babacan said there would be no progress on this issue until the European Union honoured a 2004 decision to end the economic isolation of the Turkish Cypriot community.

The European Commission drafted a regulation in 2004 that would kick-start direct trade between the Turkish Cypriots and the EU, but the Cypriot government has reportedly blocked its adoption.

Foreign ministers agreed in January that "work aiming at the adoption of special conditions for trade" with the Turkish Cypriots "must resume without delay".

However, an EU official quoted by the AFP news agency said the Republic of Cyprus was "totally intransigent on direct trade" and that no progress was likely until after presidential elections there in 2008.

'Disillusionment'

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier welcomed the opening of the new chapter of Turkey's accession talks.

He added that the German EU presidency was aiming to open several chapters before the end of June.

Mr Babacan said the EU's decision to partially suspend Turkey's membership talks had triggered some disillusionment in Turkey, and that it was crucial to show Turkish citizens that the accession process was moving forward.

He said the reform programme that Turkey was about to announce would bring the country into alignment with EU requirements in all 35 policy areas, by 2013.

Cyprus has been divided since 1974, when Turkey seized the northern third of the island.

It was acting in response to a Greek-inspired coup in Nicosia, aimed at uniting the island with Greece".


BBC News, EU resumes Turkey accession talks, 2007/03/29