| |
 Mr. Ambassador, thank you for accepting our invitation. What is France's
position on Turkey's place and prospects in Europe? Maybe I should begin by asking
if France sees Turkey in Europe?
The answer is clear.
Turkey belongs to the European system by history, by its geopolitical position. What
is exactly the European system? European system has encountered very profound changes
in the last few years. Five years ago there was a European Union and socialism and
in between a number of nations that were either neutral or waiting for a change.
The new system is not yet finalized. What is clear is that the European movement
is going to go very deep and the process of transformation has been initiated by
the success of the European Union also by the failure of the socialist bloc. The
process of enlargement that we said has begun, has accelerated more quickly than
expected. In the beginning, at the end of the 60s the idea found in Europe was to
begin a process that would finally expand to all European countries. This is why
an agreement has been signed in 1963.with Turkey. But at that time it was more an
ideal than a concrete, realistic objective.
Yes
but recently in Madrid the European Union met with quite a number of countries including
Rumania and Bulgaria as prospective members or would-be candidates of the European
Union and Turkey wasn't counted among those countries. And in the declared enlargement
processes Turkey is still not counted among those countries that are going to be
given priority. But before these, will the European Union be able to enlarge anyway?
Can it afford it?
Yes. You are right
to ask me these questions. We are bound to enlarge the Union. Probably we will be
about 30-35 countries. Turkey among them. How long will it take? We don't know. Some
countries are very close, they are very near to admission and probably they will
be accepted without too many difficulties. For instance when I mention the Czech
Republic, everybody understands that. The country has an industrial tradition; the
population is not big and the standard of life not too far from the average European
country. If you ask me if the enlargement can proceed regularly. I doubt it very
much. Small countries like the Czech Republic that are mature will have an easier
time and it will be much more difficult for the bigger countries .
So what we will have
is probably a more complex and longer process. In Madrid we reaffirmed our long-term
objective of enlargement. We have not defined precisely the limits. As far as Turkey
is concerned it is very clear that Turkey is a European nation with a market economy
and a democratic position and Turkey has a right to be in the process. This right
has been recognized in 1963. Obviously the Customs Union is a step in that direction.
It would be unrealistic to say when and how because we don't know how long it would
take and we don't know what Europe will look like after the current moves. It is
very clear we will not be able to make Europe function as it used to function when
there were 6 or 9 or 10 countries. We will have to go through a very deep reorganization
process. The answer to your question in simple words will be "Yes, Turkey is in the
process and has a right to join the European system" But when and how is unrealistic
to say today.
The
Customs Union will be unknown territory for both European Union. and Turkey. I don't
believe that there has ever been before a country which has joined the customs union
without being a member and this will have advantages and disadvantages probably for
both sides. Concerning the final vote in the European Parliament about which there
was so much controversy. What is your assessment of the European Parliament's final
vote on the realization of the Customs Union between Turkey and the European Union?
And given the fact that this was such a controversial period of time until the vote,
what do you think were the critical reasons that swang the vote so decisevely in
favor of Turkey?
The fifteen governments
have finally agreed last year about a policy. This policy was to realize the Customs
Union. It has been agreed under the influence of some major countries among which,
France. Because we had a clear view of what the relationship between Turkey and Europe
must be. Then we had to get the approval of our public opinions. Of course the public
opinion in our countries is expressed in the national parliaments but it is also
expressed in the European Parliament which gives another expression of the European
opinion. We found that the policy agreed by the governments found an opposition in
the parliament. At the present stage of development it is impossible to pursue a
foreign policy that is not approved by the European Parliament. So we decided that
we had to accept the challenge and then to open the discussion of the problem. Because
we believe that we had very strong arguments and the long-term interest of the Union
was expressed by its Customs Union agreement. On the parliament side we had different
comments. I would say that mainly there was a political question and a diplomatic
question. The political question is, can we consider that the Turkish democracy is
at the same standards with that of the average European democracy? And there were
some questions that were raised from the material that appeared in the Turkish press.
There are some problems inherited from the past and caused by a strong terrorist
movement supported from outside. And we had to prove to our friends in the parliament
that democracy and democratization will be better served by the ratification of the
agreement than by its postponement. If you wait for your neighbor to be perfect,
you can wait for years. If you offer him a hand and discuss openly the problems with
your neighbor you can make half of the way towards each other.
We
talked with a lot of European parliamentarians both in Ýstanbul and in Strasbourg.
The "Green" line was actually the more interesting one. They justified their "no"
vote by suggesting that the no vote was because they were in favor of Turkey joining
the European Union and not just the customs union and that the yes vote on the Customs
Union on the part of most of the socialists and certainly the Christian Democrats
was a way of keeping Turkey there and not ever allowing it to join the European Union.
Is this a view that you share? Obviously from your previous answer you don't believe
this to be true but there was such a point of debate as well.
I think it is a very
sophistic point because if you want to keep Turkey outside of Europe the best way
to do it was to refuse the agreement.
If
you'll let me I want to ask you a long question. There seems to be two trends in
the world, economically. One is globalization which finds its institutional symbol
in the world trade organization and the other trend is of course regional economic
blocs of which the European Union can be considered one, NAFTA can be considered
another and APEC is probably going to be a third one. And whether or not these are
complementary or contradictory trends we are not yet able to judge or define precisely
at the moment. One argument in favor of Turkey joining the customs union was we that
can not remain outside the largest economic bloc in the world. But there were also
arguments against the customs union in Turkey, they are continuing. The more sophisticated
Turkish critics of the Customs Union argued that the EU really invented those conditions
about democratization for a process that was supposed to happen because of the earlier
agreements. But by putting all those conditions because of Turkey's record they managed
to pressure Turkey and cornered it to a weak position whence it had to sign the final
agreement that was not truly favorable to it. And most importantly they argued that
Turkey thus became party to decisions that were going to be taken by political bodies
of which it was not a part. What is your reflection on that?
First of all this kind
of reasoning ignores the development of the European integration movement in the
last 20 years. It is true that in 1963 when the agreement was signed with Turkey
it was only on economic grounds. But it is true now, Turkey is a candidate to Europe
as it developed in the last 40 years and one of the main elements in European integration
movement is that it has taken a political dimension, a security dimension and the
democracy dimension. After all, nowadays the sovereignty of the European nations
is expressed not only by their Parliaments but also by the European Parliament. This
was not the case only a short while ago. Due to the fact that Turkey wants to be
a member in that process the political dimension can not be ignored anymore. And
to say that these were the conditions invented by Europeans is a Machiavellian scheme
that ignores the democratic development of Europe. If a country wants to be a part
of Europe it has to accept these common values. During that time Turkey has known
political evolution and different contradictory tendencies, we are not responsible
for that but in 1995 if Turkey wants to be even a member of the Customs Union it
has to accept that the standards are higher than 20-30 years ago. Actually in the
European system either you are inside the European Union and part of the fifteen
nations. Of course you know that some nations have bigger weight than others due
to their population or due to their economic weight. If you are not a member the
system is 15+1. That means certain decisions that are taken by the 15 are discussed
with Turkey and Turkey accepts them or not.The Customs Union is a specific institutional
system where Turkey discusses with the union so it is 1+1. Turkey has always the
right to express its point of view when certain measures are creating difficulties.
This has to be discussed inside the institutional arrangements namely the association
council and all the technical bodies that are going to be created under this. So
I believe that the Customs Union will be a rather flexible institutional system that
will allow Turkey to advance, to make steps forward in some directions when it is
possible and in some other areas Turkey will say "let's remain where we are and develop
our cooperation in other fields".
The Customs Union is
an evolutionary process. There are fields where you can progress and fields where
you can stop if you want. Take agriculture. You can progress in agricultural industry
but obviously there will be areas where the interest s are too different technically,
between the EU and Turkey. And also the Customs Union is about much more than customs.
It is a financial cooperation system and it is a political system. My real view is
now that we had to put at work the different mechanism you see will what the benefits
are from investments. Especially we will have investments from the European bank
and there will be a grant from the Union and different sources of financing. If foreign
policy can be harmonized between Turkey and the European Union let's do it. If we
see that in some areas it can't be harmonized we have to recognize it and this process
is going to create an intimate knowledge between Turkey and the European Union processes.
We are probably going to put Turkey in a much better position than it was 20 years
ago. Even relatively to other central European countries it is very possible that
in the year 2000 we will find Turkey more advanced or closer to Europe than some
countries that are to be candidates. At that stage the logic of the situation will
bring unavoidable results. Everybody wants to be a member but you can not imagine
a small Balkan country that is supposed to be a candidate in the year 2000. They
can not be ready.
Then
you are also confident that through the Customs Union Turkey will be able to manage
its economic affairs better and it will indeed be able to integrate fully economically
to the European system
We find that all European
countries enhanced and accelerated their development due to the economic integration
pressure and I can give you examples.
But
the pain is excruciating and hence the reaction is very strong.
Crises arise because
of the necessity of reform. If we didn't have the European pressure we would probably
delay the necessary reforms and reasonably. It is true that you go through crises.
I say that these crises are healthy .So, I suppose that this same process will apply
to Turkey and that the European integration pressure will be in the interests of
the reform in Turkey.
What
was your reaction to the debate over the customs union during the electoral campaign?
I've been involved
in this process in the last four years. My personal belief is that this agreement
has important political significance and it opens the prospective to Turkey. It is
obviously in the interest of Europe and it is the responsibility of the Turkish people
to decide where its own interest is. So I think the election reflected a real issue
and I would say that the result demonstrates that the idea of the European perspective
has been adopted by the people of Turkey. If you ask me, the debate has been healthy
and clearly solved the issue.
On
Christmas day Turkey had a very different political picture because of the elections.
A party that was very expressively contra the Customs Union received most of the
votes although the votes it received don't really give it a clear majority. On the
1st of January the Customs Union became operational and a couple of days later a
prison upraising has taken place, a prominent businessman has been killed, then a
journalist has been killed in custody and we see we will have a long process of forming
a coalition government. When you look at that situation what do you think?
If you look at the
long-term trends you see that Turkey is moving towards more integration with Europe,
towards more democracy and larger participation in the world economy. It is true
that there are some counteractions, some can be very violent but I want to say that
these reactions although they are aggressive and they bring with them a lot of grief
and these reactions are short-termed. It is true that these incidents have a significance
and they are bringing with them pressure. If you compare them with long term trends,
the picture is still clear and we believe that our friends in Turkey are sufficiently
well equipped to solve these problems in the frame of the logic of the European integration.
This logic is economic. It is also legal. I would say that my general opinion about
the long term situation has not changed.
I will
ask you a more sensitive question about Turkey and then I will move onto European
Union once more. You have been in Turkey long enough to know the sensitivities of
the Turkish public and you have already made reference to the terror caused by the
PKK. First of all how firm is the European governments' position in terms of seeing
the PKK as an organization of terror. Secondly, the most sensitive aspect of Turkish
public opinion is the indivisibility of the country which I think comes from the
republican and also the imperial history which is very akin to the republican tradition
in France.Whenever there is a crisis there is always this lingering doubt that the
Europeans don't really want a strong Turkey or a unified Turkey. What can be done,what
kinds of confidence-building measures do you think can be done in order to alleviate
that problem so that those partners in economic terms will truly become communicating
partners, without unnecessarily being suspicious of one another?
Our policy is very
clear. We want a strong and stable Turkey. Stability and strength need indivisibility
and it is also in the interest of all to avoid the creation of a new political crisis.
Indivisibility of Turkey is for us a very key point. We have said it very publicly.
The stability of democracy in Turkey is a major concern for us. We see the terror
destablizing democracy. The best way is to condemn terror. PKK is using terror, so
we often condemn PKK. We don't believe that mere repression is enough to solve the
problem. We believe that terror is a cancer that is threatening not only the stability
of Turkey but the whole area and the core of the relationship between Europe and
Turkey. Measures we have been able to take was to stress the territorial integrity
of Turkey, the indivisibility of Turkey. We are not supporting the internationalization
of this question. We think that the Turkish democracy can solve this problem. But
the rule of law must prevail. We are ready to help if we are asked, if we are not
we still support Turkey in its fight against terror and in its democracy. You have
to fight terror but also you have to remain in democratic.
Mr.Ambassador,
you represent a country which has in its hands a problem of terror stemming from
Islamist groups. Yours is the country which takes the leading role in the western
response to the Algerian crisis. So you are familiar with the conditions there and
how it affects you. I have a series of questions. In my opinion Algeria and Turkey
are very different. We also observe in Europe an insensitivity to the nuances, to
the great differences between the two countries and there seems to be in the western
world at large a kind of demonization of Islam without making the seperation between
Islam as a religion and Islamism as a political movement that at times resorts to
violence. How do you view this? Will Europe become more sanguine about this and be
able to make these distinctions in order to deal with this problem? After all there
are millions of persons of the muslim faith living in Europe some of them willing
to be and wishing to be citizens?
We have in France 4-5
million people of the Moslem faith. Among these 2 or 3 million are French citizens.
So we consider that we have a duty to ensure peace among our citizens and to avoid
any religious difference to lead to hostility. It is true that we recently had some
saddening incidents. The general policy of the republic is, first of all, to avoid
any interference of religion in politics and to extend a hand towards those who wish
to live in French society, namely the Muslims. And to demonstrate to all that Europe,
especially France is in favor of cooperation towards the Muslim countries. We have
helped any government, any nation to fight against terror but we have to avoid more
than anybody else any idea of cultural conflicts. The idea that after the Cold War
the time of cultural conflict, "clash of civilizations", is for us a nightmare and
it is very clear we are developing the policy of friendship with peaceful Muslim
countries that are modern and democratic.
I had
travelled in a couple of Arab countries where I had the opportunity to interview
some Arab intellectuals, Muslim intellectuals. The Bosnia policy, the change of which
really owes a lot to president Chirac and the positions that he took, is a sore point.
The general European policy for whatever reasons, France's policy included, were
deemed as being guided by this fear of Islam. Many people in these countries, as
in Turkey, believed that if it was not for the fact that the Bosnians, the main victims
of the conflict, were Muslims, Europe or the US would have done something a lot earlier,
faster and more effectively. This is a perception which may be right or wrong but
it is a perception which I think is burning the bridges that are already very few
between Europe or the western world at large and the Muslim world which is in a period
of turmoil.
 I'd say
that the Yugoslav crisis has raised in Europe the old memory, a memory that is a
nightmare namely the first World War that was born in Sarajevo. So, one of the main
objectives or the main objective of French policy was to avoid the reappearance of
rivalries between European countries. We had the main role to avoid the rivalry between
France and Germany, France and U.K.We were so much in difficulty with this crisis.
Finally we were brought into a position which we were defending the Muslims against
an aggression. As you know, we are the country that lost the largest number of soldiers
for the defense of Muslims. Then Chirac came and he found a lot of diplomatic preparations
He thought that the time has come to take a more decisive position. American elections
were near. The time was right. Chirac looked at the situation and saw the opportunity.
I'd say that it is a mistake to believe we've neglected Muslim-Europeans. The truth
is that the international balance of force didn't allow a solution of the crisis.
My
final question is again on the European Union and its prospects: Now looking at it
from without the European Union, one sees that what pulled the European Union together,
what made the process go in leaps and bounds in recent years, what created the conditions
for its appearance in the first place was the German-French entente. And without
these two pillars working very closely the European Union wouldn't have come to where
it is today. Although where it finds itself today is not what it inspired to in Maastricht.
It looks like with the collapse of Leninism, the French-German entente, that was
built on German economic prowess and French political guidance, is not anymore tenable.
Germany whether it aspired to this or not is going to make a political leap. There
may even be some indications that the French are looking beyond Germany because relations
are not as cosy as they used to be. First do you agree with that kind of assessment
that in order to balance Germany, France is getting closer, for example, to England?
And second if that is correct then can the European Union really go the way of Maastricht?
First of all the major
principle that France wants is cooperation and entente with Germany. It has been
our policy for nearly fifty years. It started in 1947. That means two years after
the end of the war. And the famous Schumann-Adenauer was exactly at 1949, 4 years
after the end of the war. We have never changed our policy. This policy has brought
some immense results not only for Germany, for France, but for the whole Europe And
this policy has produced the attraction of the European Union for all European countries
and it has contributed in a major way to the collapse of the Soviet system. So this
policy has proven its validity and is deeply in the hearts and minds of all French
politicians in the country. This will not change.
What
is the major challenge for Europe now?
What is now the main
danger for political systems? I'd say that today it is unemployment. If you look
at the situation in France, Turkey, etc., the evolution of the young generation and
of the political system, rise of an extreme right, the strikes, the difficulty in
the suburbs, I'd say that the major threat for our political system is now the development
of an unemployed generation. How can we fight that? By isolation or by progress in
the integration of Europe? All our leaders believe that European integration is the
only way to avoid destruction of our social and economic and political system. So
I'd say that even if there may be evolution in the way we pursued this European integration
and project I don't see any possibility of abandoning that process. I believe that
the Germans have the same feeling. Germany is more powerful, they could live without
Europe but finally they would encounter the same difficulty. So I believe that the
Franco-German grand dessin is going to be with us for another fifty years.
Mr.
Ambassador, thank you for your time and thoughts. |
|
