Greece and Turkey under pressure on Cyprus
By Judy Dempsey in Copenhagen and Leyla Boulton in Ankara Published: December 13 2002
Diplomats were on Friday night piling the pressure on Greece and Turkey to resume talks over the divided island of Cyprus despite a failure to clinch a deal at the European Union's Copenhagen summit.
Alfaro de Soto, the United Nations special envoy to Cyprus, as well as British and US diplomats, spent Friday in the Danish capital shuttling between Greek and Turkish diplomats.
Diplomats said they were determined to restart talks, possibly as early as next week.
During the summit, Greek and Turkish Cypriots had failed to issue any agreement in principle over the UN plan drawn up by Kofi Annan, UN secretary-general.
Diplomats said Turkey had failed to apply sufficient pressure on Rauf Denktash, Turkish Cypriot leader, who is in Ankara, where he has been under medical observation following heart surgery.
They added the onus was on Recep Tayyip Erdogan's governing Justice and Development party to restart the talks and deliver a deal over the island.
Turkey had earlier hinted it would clinch a deal over Cyprus at the summit provided it had received a firm and early date for starting EU accession negotiations.
Having failed to secure an early date - EU leaders will meet in December 2004 to review Turkey's implementation of the EU's Copenhagen reform criteria - hopes of a Cyprus deal this weekend evaporated.
In Ankara, the government, business community and the media moved to present the EU offer as something that Turkey could live with.
"The government is busy feeling resigned and trying not to see this as a disaster for Turkey or a political failure for them," observed a senior western diplomat in Ankara.
Mr Erdogan, whose ban from politics was yesterday lifted by parliament, clearing the way for him to become prime minister, had previously dismissed as unacceptable a Franco-German proposal for talks to start in 2005 after a review in 2004.
However, mainstream pro-EU media were on balance inclined to agree that the date - albeit later than that sought by the government to prevent its EU bid being tied to 10 new entrants who join on May 1 2004 - marked a step forward. "Turks are very good at depicting their success as failure," said Yalim Eralp, a retired ambassador and TV commentator.
For some Turks, the more disappointing result of Copenhagen was the failure of Turkish Cypriots to sign the preamble of the UN plan for reuniting Cyprus.
Mr Erdogan, meanwhile, has managed to turn disappointment over the later-than-expected "date for a date" to start accession talks into success, persuading Turkish public opinion that the EU date was very positive. He also started moving on the stalled EU's European Security and Defence Policy, close to lifting Ankara's long veto over giving the EU access to Nato's assets and planning
FINANCIAL TIMES
Turkey accuses EU of prejudice
Abdullah Gul rang the prime minister, Tony Blair, as soon as he heard the decision not to consider negotiating with Turkey until at least December 2004, at another EU summit, to express his disappointment.
The timetable was "totally unacceptable", he said, and accused the EU of "an act of prejudice".
A deal made last night at an opening dinner for the Copenhagen summit saw Belgium, Portugal, Italy, Spain, Greece and the UK give in to Franco-German pressure not to give Turkey a firm date to begin membership talks in January 2004.
Instead it was agreed that Ankara's progress to human rights would be reviewed in December 2004 and, if it met the necessary criteria, accession talks would begin - though no date was specified.
But the Turks say they have been given nothing more than "a date for a date", and that December 2004 is simply the point at which the EU will fix the launch of negotiations for even later.
The Anatolia news agency in Turkey reported that Mr Gul lashed out at the French president, Jacques Chirac, and others who had been instrumental in denying Turkey its much-coveted promise to join the EU.
"This means our efforts are not appreciated and there is a prejudice against us," he said.
Mr Chirac is in turn seething over attempts by the US to use Mr Blair to pressure the EU to appease Turkey, which is seen in Washington as being of crucial strategic importance.
But the prime minister today attempted to put a positive gloss on the deal: "The deal might not live up to Turkey's expectations - but for 40 years Turkey has been waiting for a firm date and this is a firm date," he said.
"It's important to emphasise that it is not a question of whether negotiations are opened with Turkey: if the tests are passed by Turkey, they will open.
"People never get absolutely everything they want but this is a huge step forward," he added.
A government spokesman described the deal as a sensible compromise between Turkey's aspirations and other partners' reservations.
The Netherlands, Austria, Denmark, Sweden and Finland are believed to be the least keen on early Turkish EU entry while France and Germany have sought to take the middle ground.
Mr Chirac is particularly opposed to starting any accession talks with Turkey before mid-2005 at the earliest - fearing that the next European elections could be hijacked by the French far-right.
Open your eyes Europe, open your gates
Once it ruled an empire from the Danube to the Euphrates, once the Ottomans reached the gates of Vienna. Here now are bazaars and Benettons, mosques and McDonald's, Turkey's "synthesis" of east and west. Yet is this really Europe?
Last night in Copenhagen the EU was debating Turkey's admission - a defining moment for Europe too. For Turkey this is the climax of 80 years intent to be modern, democratic and, yes, western. The sick man of Europe - sick maybe, amid its economic crash, but European?
Barely a voice in Turkey does not want to join, from the hopeful, "Of course we are Europeans! How could they say no?" to the angrily pessimistic, "They will never take us into their Christian club, whatever we do. Seventy million Muslims frightens them. Why?"
In an apartment up a steep Istanbul street, Haluk Salin surveys the Bosphorus from his window. A leading intellectual, liberal columnist of the Radikal newspaper, academic and TV political interviewer, his most famous book is It's Not Easy Being a Turk. He reels off the history of Turkey's European credentials, no different to the Greeks. "Europe's coldness towards us hurts," he says emotionally. "Yet we have always defended European ideals - and defended Europe in the cold war. Now, you say you don't need us any more?"
Decision time
Deftly, he turns the argument back. "This is Europe's time to decide, not ours. What do you want to be? Multicultural in a globalised 21st century, or shrink back to a little 19th century Christian enclave? I don't want to join the Europe of Giscard and Stoiber anyway, but a civilised, social democratic, outward-looking union. Think what will it do to you if you turn us away. It will create the clash of civilisations, instead of proving it nonsense."
He attacks Europe's holier-than-thou attitude towards Turkey. Democracy? Corruption? Look at Berlusconi and Bush. Peasants? Rural Poland or Bulgaria are the same. Trouble with ethnic minorities, such as the Kurds? Yes, but it is improving and what about the Basques? Look at Polish anti-semitism or Czechs and Romas. Prisons? Britain has many more in jail per capita than Turkey. And, incidentally, Granada under the Ottomans was tolerantly civilised compared with the Catholic rule of Ferdinand and Isabella. "But yes," he says, "of course Turkey has to take giant steps before we can join. Just give us a date."
But powerful reasons why Turkey is not politically or economically ready are icily laid out in the EU's latest report.
Talk to people from all parties and they agree mountains are still to be climbed and this new government wears strong crampons. In the past year the death penalty was abolished, Kurdish were allowed in education and broadcasting, and zero tolerance of torture was announced, even if these are more symbolic than actual. (Kurds, 20% of the population, get two hours' TV a week.)
Torture is endemic in police stations, just the Turkish way of law and order. Arrest someone and confession is easier than investigation. Falanga is extreme reflexology, beating the soles of the feet. There is submarino, holding the prisoner's head under water. Sandwiching between two blocks of ice is popular, as are old-fashioned electric shocks to the genitals. Almost everyone I met had been arrested and beaten or worse at some time. Human Rights Watch has found 55 cases since February, but it says torture has declined sharply and the government is trying to stop it.
Freedom of speech is arbitrary. Sanar Yurdatapan, a Marxist rock composer and writer now in his sixties, has just won the Human Rights Watch prize for his campaign. Whenever a small publisher is arrested, he gathers together powerful writers and republishes the forbidden work, challenging the authorities to arrest important men: they always back down.
At least 500 articles on the statute book forbid certain topics: all criticism of Ataturk or the military is taboo, with a catch-all law against "insulting the institution of the state". The problem is the chaotic state of the law - a tangle of contradictory laws invoked arbitrarily. As a Marxist, Yurdatapam is suspicious of the EU: "Big capital wants it," he says with a shrug, but adds that trying to join is forcing progress on rights. "Yet we must want rights for ourselves, not just for the EU."
The question is whether Tayyip Erdogan's new, clean Islamist Justice and Development party feels strong enough to remove sacred laws protected by the might of a military that controls a shadowy national security council which meets monthly to approve or refuse what parliament has decided.
The EU demands that the million-strong military withdraws to a constitutional role under the thumb of the minister of defence. But although it has conducted four coups since 1960, it is not an altogether bad force, the only body recognised as uncorrupt, guarding against the very rise in Islamicism that most frightens the EU.
In 1997 it removed a weak coalition led by a 20% minority Islamic party that was turning against "the unbelievers of Europe, imperialism and Zionism". New elections were called.
The guarantor of secularism, the army is keeper of the flame lit by Ataturk, the autocrat who in 1923 created a nation from Ottoman ruins by turning westwards. At a stroke he changed the Arabic script to the western alphabet, changed the calendar, imposed trousers, banned the headscarf and the fez declaring: "I wish all religions at the bottom of the sea".
Since then, Turkey has tried to face west. With bad neighbours such as Iran, Iraq, Syria and Russia, they ask, where else? Even the army wants to join the EU, although that will remove its power.
With the army disarmed, might Islamic fundamentalism rise up red in tooth and claw? Everywhere there is emphatic denial. Although the new government has "Islamic" in the title, its leader still trapped in a politically motivated legal ban for reciting an Islamic poem, even the Marxists give him optimistic support.
A leading Islamic intellectual and Koran translator, Ali Babuc, describes Turkish Islam as like modern Christianity: "We interpret the deep meaning of the Koran, not the literal words." Ancient Middle Eastern tribal customs - stoning and hand-chopping, unfree women - are no more relevant than Christians obeying the weird laws of Leviticus. He too is passionate about joining, "to show the Islamic world that democracy and Islam are compatible".
Headscarves
What of the headscarf issue? Old Ataturk laws prohibit them in schools, universities or state buildings, effectively banning devout women. Few things in Turkey are what they seem. Atheist feminists join those pressing for women's freedom of dress: imagine banning crucifixes for women in US universities, they say. Mr Babuc says all can be resolved: "The French allow adult women over 18 to wear the headscarf in education. That will do."
Up a narrow stairway high above Istanbul's fish market, Amargi is a small feminist enclave engrossed in 1970s meta-feminist philosophy of patriarchy. How are women in Turkey? The laws are egalitarian, the reality wretched. In public men everywhere, women less visible and insecure but secular: no more black chadors here than haunt Oxford Street. Courts still ignore domestic violence with a lethal old Turkish saying: "A husband can beat you and love you." But what's new? It is familiarly like any macho southern European country of the 1970s. Let us join you, say the feminists too.
Some EU enthusiasts fear Turkey as a US stalking horse. America has behaved outrageously - and counter-productively - in pressing Turkey's application in exchange for using its bases and borders to invade Iraq. It makes pro-US governments - Spain, Britain and Italy - look like US lackeys in urging Turkey's case.
Passionate Huttonite Europeans see the danger: at best the US doesn't give a damn about Europe's unity, at worst it wants to weaken the EU into a mere free-trade union, never an alternative superpower.
But that is not the way Turks see it. Everyone I met wants to join Europe to escape US hegemony. Turkey will be a leftwing, not a rightwing, force in the EU and all parties echo Mr Babuc's warm words about Europe's social democratic capitalism, with instinctive revulsion against "the cruel capitalism of the US".
If the French and Germans succeed in destroying Turkey's application through delay until the new 12 can veto it, they will not strengthen but weaken Europe's future.
"Europe must be the democratic beacon for countries like us!" said one writer. "Open your gates!"
Is it in Turkey's interests to join this Christian club?
A common enough sentiment in the Europe of Giscard d'Estaing and Edmund Stoiber. But this was a Turk, not a European, speaking, and not just any Turk but the man who is today Turkey's new prime minister. Abdullah Gul is now the right-hand man in government of Recep Tayyip Erdogan - the leader of the Justice and Development party who, prevented by a legal ban from standing for parliament, cannot take the office of prime minister himself. In 1994, Gul was the deputy chairman and a spokesman on foreign affairs for Refah, a predecessor of the Justice and Development party. "Turkey should not join the European Union, we have said this from the beginning," he told me during an interview in his office in the Turkish parliament. "Look at a European city, and then look at Istanbul. It's not a Christian city."
Gul's recent pronouncements on this subject have, of course, been very different. He said a few weeks ago, for example: "We aim to leave no excuse for the EU to say 'no' to us at Copenhagen". Senior men in the party, known as AKP after its Turkish initials, some time ago began comparing it to the Christian Democrat movements of Europe, in spite of the fact that the most substantial opposition to Turkish entry into the EU comes from within the ranks of such movements.
Erdogan and Gul have not tried to deny that their views have changed. That would in any case be impossible, given the frequency with which in the past they demanded that Turkey cease knocking on the door in Brussels, withdraw from Nato, and devote itself instead to the creation of an Islamic common market and to its ties with Turkic central Asia.
They have explained the shift many times. It is permissible to wonder, however, how completely they have changed their minds. And it is also permissible to wonder whether their original position was sound - representing a real understanding of the limits of the possible in Turkey as well as a recognition of its duties, as the most developed and stable Muslim society, toward its Muslim neighbours and the rest of the Islamic world.
There is a hint of the old attitudes in the remarks AKP leaders have made about what their course might be if Europe continues to rebuff Turkey. A dramatic rejection, as opposed to the calibrated reluctance that will almost certainly come into play in Copenhagen, as it has on such occasions before, is not at all likely. Should it come at some stage, however, it would allow a party like the AKP to turn to the Turkish electorate and play on its resentment of Europe, as opposed to its enthusiasm for it, in order to return to the old line.
The Islamist party in Turkey, through the various changes of name forced on it by legal bans, has been flexible in policy but fixed in its basic aim, which has been to take society back "from the foes of Islam who have governed Turkey for almost a century", as a party paper put it in 1996.
Flexibility has meant a readiness to shelve or change policies in order to achieve or stay in office, as Necmettin Erbakan, the founding leader of the party, did during his time in power in 1996. The fixed purpose has been expressed less in international policy than in the use of office to pack the public service with party supporters, a process which began in Turkey's big cities after the Islamist victories in local government elections in the early 90s and continued in 1996, when the party came into a national coalition government.
The basis for this penetration had earlier been laid by the growth of imam hatip schools, which was assisted by several of Turkey's major parties. These schools, originally for the education of the clergy, were vastly expanded to form a parallel educational system for Islamists and a source of the personnel who began to flood into government offices, where their arrival could be measured by the number of beards and headscarves. It was this process above all, rather than any particular policy at home or abroad, which impelled the armed forces to intervene in 1997, bringing about the fall of the coalition government in which the Islamists were members.
In preparing for a new attempt to take power, the once again re-named Islamists moved beyond the flexibility they had displayed in the past, which was a matter of proclaiming in opposition what they were ready to drop in office. They moved instead to steal the clothes of the secular parties by shifting position on Europe and Nato. The unavoidable political reality was that most Turkish businessmen wanted the country in the EU, that a large portion of the electorate in general identified "Europe" as code for jobs, prosperity, and the freedom to travel and work in the continent, and that the army insisted on Nato and the American connection.
Skilfully combining these positions with a continuing Islamist message and with not unjustified charges of corruption and economic mismanagement against the secular parties, gave the AKP a stunning victory. But that takes us to the heart of the Turkish problem now for Europe, which is that the Islamists have used Europe to take power for what we must still assume are Islamist purposes. The secular parties, meanwhile, and much of the Turkish middle class, see in that same Europe an antidote to Islamism, as well as to the military authoritarianism of the past. Turkish liberals are sure that democratisation in Turkey would be far less advanced had there not been the spur of Europe's requirements for entry.
Perhaps the Islamists have really changed. The party and the movement certainly include various currents of opinion, and both Gul and Erdogan are from its moderate wing. Yet it seems probable that two very different projects are still under way in Turkey, the one to make the country more Islamic, and the other to make it less so, and that both have now seized on Europe as a means to their ends.
Whether Europe really is an answer for either side is the question that Gul raised in his earlier incarnation. The suspicion must be that the Islamists' hearts are not in it, and that the secularists' need for both an icon and an ally has led them to overlook the real obstacles to union with what is indeed a Christian club. Totting up improvements in human rights or democratic practice is not the point. Turkey is an unfinished drama in which Europe's role has become even more central than it was before. But whether it will or should end with the country's incorporation into the EU is an open question
Europe's leaders last night delivered a setback to Turkey's ambitions for speedy EU membership by ruling out talks on its bid to join before 2005 and giving no clear date for negotiations to start.
The announcement, made at a midnight press conference at the Copenhagen EU summit, means that a decision on whether to start talks on Turkey's EU bid will take place in December 2004 later than a proposed date already rejected by Ankara.
Announcing the decision, the Danish Prime Minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, said that if EU leaders decide in December 2004 that Turkey has made sufficient progress on democracy, human rights and economic stability, "then accession negotiations can begin as soon as possible". However, unlike some suggested compromises, there was no clear date for talks on membership to start.
Turkish sources reacted cautiously and one senior aide argued: "We evaluated the decision as a decision with good intentions. It is not a distant date and a bad decision. This can be viewed as an interim decision and it is flexible, still open to change."
Britain, which argued for an early date for talks with Turkey, put the best possible gloss on the decision, arguing that it meant that, providing human rights standards were improved, membership talks would definitely be approved in 2004.
However the deal appeared worse than that laid down under a Franco-German plan, which would have seen EU leaders meeting in the summer of 2004 to approve negotiations beginning in 2005.
Before the announcement Tony Blair had described a 2005 start date for negotiations now the earliest possible time as "too late".
Amid frantic diplomatic activity, diplomats were trying to get 25 current and future members of the EU to give a collective pledge to Ankara.
At stake is Europe's prickly relationship with Turkey, the prospect of admitting Cyprus into the EU in 2004 and of achieving reunification of the island, which has been divided since 1974.
Turkey's bid to join the EU club is intertwined with efforts to resolve the division of Cyprus because Ankara is in a position to put pressure on the Turkish Cypriot leader, Rauf Denktash.
In exchange, Ankara had been looking for a firm pledge on starting negotiations on membership. Once such talks are opened, they have invariably led to an invitation to join in the past.
The Franco-German blueprint foresaw the EU leaders meeting in July 2004 to approve plans to open talks on Turkey's EU membership in 2005 subject to Ankara meeting human rights standards.
Ankara opposed this plan because by 1 May 2004 the EU is due to have admitted 10 new member states and Turkey wanted the decision on its membership talks to be taken by the current 15, not a group of 25, some of whom may have objections to its candidature.
Britain, Spain and Italy have backed Ankara's case, which has also been supported by the US President, George Bush.
One compromise floated by Turkey was to move forward the decision on when to start talks to April 2004 or earlier, allowing the negotiations to begin in 2005 as envisaged by the French and Germans. However that has been blocked, particularly by Paris, which believes that any decision before the European elections in June 2004 would be a hostage to the far-right.
Instead EU diplomats said there could be a statement on Turkey from no fewer than 25 countries the existing 15 from the EU plus the 10 about to join about Turkey. Such a document would also deal with the membership bid of Romania and Bulgaria, which hope to join the EU in 2007, and Turkey.
Alternatively, all 28 countries might issue a joint declaration. The EU might also offer a sweetener to Turkey by re-categorising cash already given to Ankara as "pre-accession aid", underlining Ankara's new status.
After talks with the Turkish Prime Minister, Abdullah Gul, in Copenhagen, Mr Blair said the summit should decide a "firm and clear date" for the talks to start. "It will be the clearest possible signal that the EU wants Turkey in the EU family."
Prospects of reaching a swift deal on Cyprus were looking less optimistic last night. Recep Tayyip Erdogan, leader of Turkey's new ruling party, was praised by diplomats for his efforts to resolve the Cyprus issue. However Mr Denktash, the hardline leader of the Turkish Cypriots, is in hospital in Ankara. Any deal needs the support of the Turkish and Greek Cypriot leaders, Turkey, Greece, the UK (a guarantor power) and the UN.
Meanwhile the Turks agreed to allow the EU's embryonic rapid reaction force guaranteed access to Nato's military planning capabilities. A dispute over that plan has blocked the development of the EU's military ambitions
Turkey accused Europe of prejudice yesterday after pressure from Washington to admit the country to the EU quickly appeared to have backfired.
Efforts by George Bush to persuade leaders to expedite Ankara's application were spurned when the EU summit in Copenhagen decided Turkey would have to wait until December 2004 before a review that could lead to negotiations.
The Turkish Prime Minister, Abdullah Gul, said the decision meant "our efforts are not appreciated and there is a prejudice against us". He also lashed out at the French President, Jacques Chirac, saying: "What Chirac is doing is the real blackmailing. I was very saddened by the fact that he said 'Turkey is blackmailing us.'"
Ankara initially took a hard line, arguing that it had been given nothing more than "a date for a date". It was extremely unhappy that the decision in December 2004 would be taken not by the 15 who made yesterday's pledge, but an expanded EU of 25, which might be even less sympathetic to Turkey's application.
Later, the Turkish attitude softened and Ankara agreed to lift its long-standing veto on plans for the EU's embryonic rapid reaction force to have guaranteed access to Nato's planning capabilities.
However, hopes of a speedy breakthrough on the reunification of Cyprus faded. The Turkish Cypriot leader, Rauf Denktash, said any agreement should take effect only after Turkey became a member of the EU.
In any event, Turkey's strategy for the summit came apart after an intensive lobbying campaign in Washington and a media blitz across the EU was badly received by M. Chirac and the German Chancellor, Gerhard Schröder.
Mr Bush phoned the Danish Prime Minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who chaired yesterday's meeting, specifically to lobby on behalf of Turkey. One EU source said: "Rasmussen was really annoyed by being constantly harassed. He said to Bush, 'If you are so keen on Turkey in the EU, why don't you let Mexico join the US?'"
Yesterday M. Chirac resisted last-minute pressure from Tony Blair and the Italian Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi, to make another gesture towards Turkey. M. Chirac has insisted any discussion of Turkish candidature before European elections in June 2004 would play into the hands of the far right. Mr Berlusconi conceded yesterday that there had been "strong pressure from Turkey, which many didn't like".
Others put the blame more squarely on America. Pat Cox, the president of the European Parliament, said: "Sometimes our friends in Washington are heavier handed than the situation might require, and this might have been one of those situations." And Pascal Lamy, a French EU commissioner, argued: "It's a classic US diplomacy to want to put Turkey in Europe. The further the boundaries of Europe extend, the better US interests are served."
Turkey's allies argued that Ankara should accept the plan under which the union "will open accession negotiations with Turkey" if it improves its human rights standards, but gives no specific date.
After a fractious call with Mr Gul, Mr Blair argued: "The deal might not live up to Turkey's expectations – but for 40 years Turkey has been waiting for a firm date and this is a firm date. It's important to emphasise that it is not a question of whether negotiations are opened with Turkey: if the tests are passed by Turkey, they will open."
Ankara's allies believe that the government had allowed unrealistic expectations to build up, and that, in the broad scheme of things, Turkey had moved much closer to EU membership than could have been expected a few years ago. One participants in the talks said: "In the long march of history, since membership negotiations themselves will take five to 10 years, whether the start date is 2004 or 2005 makes little difference."
December 13, 2002
December 13, 2002 THE TIMES
TURKEY’S hopes of early entry to the European Union suffered a setback late last night when the member states decided to wait until the end of 2004 before reviewing its human rights reforms.
The decision, which is a rebuff to the United States and Britain, who had been pushing for entry talks to start in 2004, was announced after lengthy talks at the EU summit in Copenhagen.
Tony Blair arrived in the Danish capital giving warning that 2005 was too late to begin the talks process. But Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the Danish Prime Minister, outlined a timetable last night that would mean that formal negotiations could not begin until 2005.
The decision is a victory for France and Germany, who had proposed a cautious approach that would see negotiations with Turkey starting in mid-2005. President Bush and Mr Blair had been advancing Turkey’s cause because as Iraq’s northern neighbour its use as a staging post will be vital in any future conflict against Saddam Hussein.
The announcement will be put today to Abdullah Gul, the Turkish Prime Minister, who had demanded nothing less than a firm date next year for opening accession negotiations.
Mr Rasmussen said last night: "If the European Council in December 2004, on the basis of a report and a recommendation from the Commission, decides that Turkey fulfils the Copenhagen political criteria, the European Union will open accession negotiations with Turkey."
Mr Blair had demanded that the EU set a formal date for the start of negotiations "to send a signal to the wider Islamic world that we want to engage with them". He had gone straight into a pre-summit meeting with Recep Tayyip Erdogan, leader of Turkey’s ruling AK party, in a calculated show of solidarity with the Turks.
Mr Blair had told his Cabinet that the summit "could transform relationships with Turkey". He said: "We cannot afford to pass up the chance of placing Turkey on the path to modernisation."
Turkey’s case has been pushed throughout the week by President Bush and Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State. General Powell has urged that talks should start even if Turkey’s human rights reforms are incomplete.
Mr Rasmussen said that he had told President Bush in a conversation on Wednesday that it had to be a European decision. He felt that a compromise on the date could be reached.
The first item on the summit agenda had been a reminder of the differences that exist. Valery Giscard d’Estaing, the former French President, brought heads of government up to date on the work of the Convention on the Future of Europe, which he chairs.
He provoked controversy last month by suggesting that Turkey was "not a European country" and had a "different culture, different approach and a different way of life". Turkey’s admission, he declared, would mean "the end of the EU".
The 2004 date had been supported by Britain, Spain, Greece, Belgium, Portugal and Italy. Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian Prime Minister, had said that beginning the talks in 2004 would give Turkey a year to make the reforms to its markets, its constitution and human rights.
Mr Gul said after a meeting with Costas Simitis, the Greek Prime Minister, that Turkey was ready to meet all the EU conditions, known as the Copenhagen criteria because they were set out at a summit here in 1993.
Turkey had wanted its own accession process to be irrevocable before the ten new EU countries, including Cyprus, become full members in May 2004.
Rome seeks second bite at treaty
Italy is pressing for the next big advance in European integration to be brought forward a year to 2003, so that it can be sealed by another Treaty of Rome.
Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian Prime Minister, wants work in the Convention on Europe’s Future speeded up, and the subsequent inter-governmental conference brought forward, so that the final summit can happen during Italy’s presidency of the EU in the second half of next year. The Italian capital gave its name to the treaty that in 1957 inaugurated the original six-member Common Market.
Signor Berlusconi was arguing to fellow leaders last night that it would be appropriate for Rome to host the next landmark summit. Britain is understood to be unenthusiastic.
By Jean Christou
CYPRUS MAIL 13/12/2002