LONDON - The Economist, one of the most influential economic and political weeklies in Britain, has indicated that the mood had turned unusually bad in Turkey-the EU relations.
In an article, the Economist wrote, "there is a familiar pattern in Turkey's to join the EU. Every few months, a row blows up about something usually over Cyprus. A crisis summit is called, a deal is done, nobody is happy - but nobody storms out. Life continues until the next row erupts."
"This week things went much as expected. Yet the mood has turned unusually bad. The Turks are angry, the European unbending, and it is hard to see how the talks can ever be unfrozen. For the row is not really over Cyprus but over growing doubts about whether Europe really wants Turkey to join the club," it said.
Pointing out that the relationship between Turkey and the EU was always edgy, the Economist said, "a little like Mexico's with the United States. Turkey is big, poor, borders on the EU and is a potential source of many migrants. Its strategic significance is obvious. It abuts Iraq, Syria, Iran and the Caucasus; it has a big army; in an era of energy insecurity, its network of oil and gas pipelines is increasingly important. Above all, it is a rare example of a mainly Muslim country with a thriving, secular democracy and a liberal, free-market economy."
"But Europe has not always supportive. Turkey signed an association agreement with the then EEC as far back as 1963 that prefigured eventual membership. Only in 1999 was Turkey recognized as an official candidate," it said.
The weekly noted that only since the Justice & Development Party (AKP) came to the power in 2002 has Turkey really begun to make membership plausible.
"In the past four years, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has proved a forceful and effective reformer, tackling the economy, constitutional and judicial change, civilian control of the army. Turkey's reforms now match or exceed those carried out by many central European countries that have joined the EU. Nobody expected the process to be quick, at the earliest, Turkey will not join for another ten years," it said.
-"BIGGER PROBLEMS LIE ON EUROPEAN SIDE"-
The Economist further commented, "even so, since October 2005, relations have gone downhill fast. Some of the fault lies on the Turkish side; its reforms have slowed. But the bigger problems lie on the European side. The arrival of a Christian Democratic chancellor in Germany and upcoming presidential elections in France will cost Turkey two key supporters."
"The reluctance of voters -in Austria, France and Germany in particular- to see Turkey as a full member is helping slow reforms and revive nationalism: many Turks are unwilling to change to please Europeans who do not want them in their club anyway," it said.
The Economist noted, "the negotiations frozen this week can be reopened only with the unanimous approval of existing members: that gives Turkey's hardline opponents a veto."
"The row about Cyprus is pretty typical. Turkey certainly has a legal obligation to open trade links with the (Greek-Cypriot) republic. However, the EU promised to end its embargo of the north when the United Nations' unification plan for the island was accepted by the Turkish-Cypriots but rejected by the Greek-Cypriots in April 2004. Since Cyprus has a veto over that decision, the embargo has stuck," it said.
-"EUROPEANS SHOULD BE PRESSING THE GREEK CYPRIOTS"-
''The European should now be pressing the Greek-Cypriots to give way over the embargo. Freezing part of the negotiations with Turkey will not help solve that dispute," it said.
The Economist added, "it would be a catastrophic geo-strategic failure if Europe and the West were to turn away Turkey, the exemplar of Muslim democracy, because of a small, bolshy Mediterranean island."