Yusuf Kanlı

Today’s modern, Turkish Republic is a shrunken version of the past gigantic Ottoman Empire. Turkish society is composed of elements from all the peoples of the past, vast geography of the empire.

But, this country does not have a modern minority description that would provide the minorities not only "first class rights" like the rest of the society, but also some "added" rights to preserve, protect and promote their ethnic, cultural, religious or communal peculiarities, the absence of which would mean Turkey losing some of its most beautiful "flowers."Pluralism is the biggest asset this country has inherited. Naturally, there were mistakes in the past, there are mistakes now and there will be mistakes in the future. However, we must try not to repeat the past mistakes and learn the value of our pluralistic society and accommodate ourselves accordingly rather than, for example, questioning the ethnic background of the President of the Republic as if someone with an ethnic background other than an ethnic Turkish one was a potential traitor. Indeed, that minority perception, which contradicts with what we have inherited over the ages, is one of the main problems of modern Turkey.An Atatürk anecdoteI read Yavuz Donat’s column in daily Sabah. He was writing about an anecdote he heard from İstanbul’s Bakırköy district mayor, Ateş Ünal Erzen, who reportedly heard it from İnan Kıraç.One day, at around 6:00 p.m., İsmet İnönü, the prime minister at the time, visited President Mustafa Kemal Atatürk at the Florya presidential residence.- I hope nothing is wrong İsmet, you have come without prior notice...- My Pasha, the minorities issue... We will bring the issue to Parliament... What would you say on the issue?- İsmet, it is too late now... Come early tomorrow morning and let’s have a word on the issue.After İnönü leaves, Atatürk summons all the staff of the residence and orders them, "Keep only the tulips... Root out all the rest of the flowers and throw them! Immediately!"İnönü visits Atatürk early next morning and seeing the terrible situation of the garden asks the staff:- What happened?- Pasha ordered, we have rooted out all flowers except tulips...Then, İnönü enters Atatürk’s room and asks:- My Pasha, the garden is devastated... What has happened?- I ordered the minorities be rooted out İsmet...İnönü receives the message...- İsmet, I did not say "How happy is the one who says I am a Turk," for nothing. Everyone who feels he is a Turk is the son of this land. And, no one should consider legislating to create a law on minorities...It is high time...That was just an anecdote, but a very meaningful one that translates well to the dangers posed by the present day crooked mentality of some that we must all stand against. Perhaps it is now high time for Turkey to take a revolutionary step and instead of, for example, trying to get rid of the contentious Article 301 of the Penal Code, instead we radically amend the article and turn it into one criminalizing hate speech and actions against the Turkish nation and state organs, but more so against minorities and minority identities. Of course, in undertaking such an amendment attention must be paid to the wording of the text of the article and to make sure that we don’t end up having a hate crime law serving the domination of the majority over the minorities. Yes, indeed, it might be shameful, but this country does not yet have any legislation criminalizing hate speech and actions. Perhaps such a law would have helped to dissuade people resorting to hate crimes and perhaps Fathar Santaro, Hrant Dink and many other victims of hate crime could have been saved. But, of course, we need to have as well a president who would not consider as an insult and demand a symbolic compensation because of an idiotic question by an opposition politician about whether there was Armenian blood from his mother’s side, but instead would say "What if I had Armenian blood? We are a synthesis of an imperial past, centuries of togetherness of many peoples."

Some time ago, I was talking with Liberal Democrat Party, or LDP, leader Cem Toker. "Did you see that red map of Turkey?" he asked. First I thought he was referring to a map showing areas of the country affected by a serious health epidemic or such. "What red map?" I asked in curiosity. "The map of Turkey on which provinces with total alcohol ban marked with red, provinces where there is only ban on alcohol at municipal facilities marked with yellow and the few provinces where there is no ban on alcohol are marked with white!" he said.

He said he read in a report that the situation was so serious that excluding few hamlets in the Black Sea and Mediterranean coastal areas and some districts in the Thrace, the map was almost entirely red with some yellow exceptions.

I doubted accuracy of what he was telling me though I was never convinced with the "exceptional development" clichŽ response of the ruling Justice and Development Party, or AKP, government to reports of violence against those consuming or selling alcohol in Ankara, Istanbul and elsewhere and its outright rejection as fabrication those reports that AKP municipalities were creating "red zones" in cities where no alcohol could be served even by private restaurants.

19 white cities

After some research, I found that report as well. Antalya, Artvin, Bilecik, Bartın, Çanakkale, Edirne, Eskişehir, Hatay, Kırklareli, Mersin, Muğla, İzmir, Nevşehir, Ordu, Sakarya, Sinop, Tekirdağ, Yalova and Zonguldak. Nineteen cities all togetherÉ Why I listed these cities? According to that report, if the situation has not further deteriorated since the end of August, these are the remaining 19 provinces of Turkey where at municipal and public restaurants and clubs alcohol is "still" being served; municipal police are not "yet" applying "methods of persuasion" to stop shops selling alcoholic products or municipalities are "still" renewing licenses of private restaurants and cafŽs so far still serving other alcoholic products to their customers.

In six provinces Ñ Ankara, Bursa, Denizli, Düzce, Istanbul and Manisa Ñ there is no alcohol ban at public restaurants, but they are not served in municipal premises, restaurants and clubs, the municipalities are either creating immense difficulties or rejecting right away extension of licenses of private restaurants and clubs offering alcoholic products to their customers. The remaining 56 provinces are totally "alcohol free" and in none of them there is a municipal, public or private restaurant or club that serves alcoholic products.

Mind you, this writer is no alcoholic; he is very much aware of the social problems related to alcohol consumption and in no way is in a bid to defend the rights of the alcoholics. Yet, if over the past six years the "non-alcohol" program that started first some 15 years ago with Recep Tayyip Erdoğan banning alcoholic products from municipal facilities in Istanbul when he became mayor of that largest Turkish city has spread such rapidly over the past six years rule of the Justice and Development Party, or AKP, in the country and that now only 19 out of 81 provinces of the country do not have ban on alcohol consumption at municipal and public restaurants and clubs is just a demonstration of an alarming imposed and systematic lifestyle change campaign.

Copenhagen criteria vs. Ankara criteria
Hugh Pope of the International Crisis Group was in Ankara Tuesday for a round-table discussion on the recently released "Turkey and Europe: The decisive year ahead" report. Pope was worried with the slow pace of Cyprus settlement talks, let up in Turkey’s reform drive and a potential road crash in Turkey-European Union relations in the second half of 2009 when European leaders make an "evaluation" of Turkey’s compliance with the Copenhagen criteria and the two conditions set at the opening of the accession talks Ñ "normalization of relations with all EU member countries" and implementation of the additional protocol, that requires Turkey open its ports and airports to Greek Cypriots. He was particularly keen on stressing that the danger of a breakdown in Turkey’s EU accession process would be especially great if there was no Cyprus settlement in 2009, though he was "hopeful."

However I was more worried with the "Ankara criteria" that was painting the Turkish map slowly, but steadily, in red.

As many people expected, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan disclosed this week that his Justice and Development Party, or AKP, has decided to nominate incumbent Kadir Topbaş for the prestigious mayoral post of Istanbul. Mayoral candidates of the AKP for many cities are already decided, however, the prime minister and his party are still going through pains to make a decision who to nominate for the mayoral seats in some 46 other cities headed by Ankara. Naturally, the Ankara decision is the most difficult one to make for the prime minister and his party, not only because it is the capital city and who will be the mayor is very important, but more so because of various complicating factors. Because of those factors, although Erdoğan successfully escaped some fait accompli moves by Gökçek without declaring the name of the incumbent as the candidate for Ankara, the prime minister so far did not rule out either the possibility of continuing with Gökçek.

Gökçek’s plague is Gökçek himself
In 1999 he was elected Ankara mayor for a second time. After the Virtue Party was also closed down Gökçek remained as an independent for a while and later joined the AKP. In the 2004 local elections he was elected as Ankara Mayor for a third time in a row, unprecedented in the history of the city. Now Gökçek is demanding the post for a fourth term and there is the possibility that if AKP does not nominate him he might run as an independent, or become a candidate of another conservative party. In any case, such a development would divide the vote and render it very difficult for the AKP to win the Ankara seat.

Another complicating factor is the character of Gökçek. He has been so arrogant, aggressive and egocentric that he has been a real headache for the AKP leadership, while his popularity among conservative citizens might be an asset for the party. Will Erdoğan decide to continue with a personality he has been having problems to keep under control? Besides Gökçek angered the prime minister earlier this year with his covert demand for his 25-year-old son be made a candidate for the seat of mayor for the Çankaya District of Ankara, a move that was criticized in the media as an effort to establish a Gökçek dynasty in Ankara.

The most important factor, unfortunately, is the rampant claims of corruption, nepotism and misuse of office against Gökçek, although none of those claims could have been proved so far. Yet, a recent "duel of words" on a leading TV channel between Gökçek and main opposition Republican People’s Party, or CHP, deputy parliamentary group chairman Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu was such a big fiasco for the incumbent Ankara mayor that according to many people his chance for running for a fourth term diminished a lot. Another factor, which is based on a speculation rather than hard news, is based on a claim that in 2004 Erdoğan reluctantly agreed for Gökçek’s candidacy and promised incumbent Keçiören Mayor Turgut Altınok Ñ who was demanding to be a candidate for the Ankara seat as well Ñ that he should wait until the 2009 poll.

For the past few days senior AKP executives are meeting separately with the party’s Ankara deputies to feel their pulse, while Erdoğan is meeting with deputies of some other 45 cities. Ankara deputies reportedly share the party headquarters’ evaluation that three terms were more than enough for Gökçek and the party should have a new candidate for Ankara.

Naturally, as is the case for any other important decision in all political parties in Turkey, the final decision will be made by the absolute leader of the party, that is by Erdoğan.

So far, there are three other potential candidates in the AKP for the Ankara mayoral seat. They are Trade Minister Zafer Çağlayan, Altındağ Mayor Veysel Tiryaki and Keçiören Mayor Altınok. While in polls among party delegates Altınok appears to be preferred the most, the prime minister is reportedly unhappy with the heated contest for candidacy between Gökçek and Altınok and is going in between the names of Çağlayan and Tiryaki. The Ankara wars within the AKP appears will end within next couple of days with Erdoğan disclosing the name of the Ankara candidate of his party. However, it is clear that on the Gökçek front irrespective of whether he is named a candidate or not the fight will somehow continue in some form even after the March polls and in time may even take on a bigger aim should the incumbent is not made a candidate.

Turkey’s oldest political party that defines itself as "social democrat," although many in the country and abroad have difficulty in deciding where to place it on the Turkish or global political spectrum, held Sunday an extraordinary convention at a luxurious five-star Ankara Hotel. The convention started with a lengthy speech from party leader Deniz Baykal who accused ruling Justice and Development Party, or AKP, leader and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan of establishing a one-man rule in the country. While it was difficult to challenge Baykal’s assessment, it was obvious that the Republican People’s Party, or CHP, leader must be suffering from hypermetropia, a natural consequence for people over 70 years old. While he could see clearly that Erdoğan has grown into a sultan who has abandoned inner-party democracy in AKP back in 2003, he was unable to see in the mirror what he himself look like. Is he much different than Erdoğan?

Indeed, a better headline to this article might be "Baykal brings an end to dictating in party headquarters by establishing his own absolute rule in the CHP." Or, perhaps I should have used a little bit more "creative" headline like "The sultan of CHP" or perhaps simply say "CHP returned to its roots; abandoned democracy!"

The delegates of the CHP rubberstamped a set of proposals Sunday drafted by Baykal and his loyalists in the CHP introducing some radical changes in the statute and program of the CHP that all aimed to bring an end to the chronic faction politics that sometimes make life difficult for the party leader and renders for the party leader very difficult to stop discussions within the party over some of his policies.

In the jargon of a self-catering democrat’s freedom of thought, the right to object and to criticize are principles that should be enjoyed only by the "select" while the "serfs" will be free to think how big their leader is; to object to the charges made by opponents of their "paramount chief" and to criticize the critics of their "eximious leader." Further worst, very much like brushing aside the justice in representation and considering the ten percent electoral threshold as a requirement of stability in governance, these self-catering democrats consider killing the minute remnants of inner-party democracy as steps taken to consolidate cohesion within the partyÉ

Baykal the kingmaker!
The delegates of the CHP listened to Baykal’s speech, had some discussions over the bad performance of the AKP government and then raised their hands to approve the changes in the party statute and program transferring most of the duties to the party leader for the sake of "better administration of the party" or "establishing cohesion in party policies" or to achieve "better coordination between the party headquarters and the local organizations."

For example, the CHP will no longer have a 20-member party executive selected by the 80-member party assembly. It will not have as well a powerful secretary-general Ğ a tradition of leftist parties. Instead, the CHP will have a 15-member party executive (in compliance with the lowest number of members under Article 16 of the current Law on Political Parties) all but one appointed by the party leader. The only exception is the party leader, who is elected by the party convention. The new party executive will be composed of the leader, 13 deputy chairpersons and a secretary-general. The leader may sack any or all members of the party executive and form a new one the way he likes it, or when he decides so. In the provincial organizations of the party, election of the provincial secretary as well as the treasurer and the education secretary will no longer be done through secret vote of the provincial board of the party. Instead, those executives will be appointed by the provincial chairperson. The same mentality is reflected as well to the election/selection of the country organizations of the party with the "appointment power" is being given to county chairperson. Why these changes are being made? To establish better coordination with the party headquarters, that is with the party leader.

While supporters of these changes claimed that the CHP has done now what the AKP did back in 2003, to what extent it is democratic and indeed compatible with the principles of social democracy to create some little despots at local party organizations loyal to the supreme ruler at party headquarters for the sake of "cohesion in party administration"?

Is it possible to have an autocratic social democratic party?

No... No... I am not joining the campaign of a group of intellectuals who have taken a "collective individual decision" to apologize to the Armenians for the 1915-1917 events in which immense tragedies were lived not only by Armenians but by all ethnic groups of Anatolia. I am not going to engage in a campaign of denial either, with claims that Armenians were killed but so were others and turn a blind soul to the massive human tragedies of that period.

And, yes, I am for a detailed investigation by historians of what indeed happened during those years; to what extent the Unity and Progress Party government of the dissolving Ottoman Empire or the French, the Russians, the Germans, the British and Americans were responsible in the calamity lived in Anatolia during those years and of course, firmly believe that whichever state had any degree of responsibility in the catastrophe must come up with an appropriate apology. Naturally, as it is the duty of any state to safeguard the safety and well-being of its population and as the Ottoman government of the time grossly failed in that, if there is anyone still alive from the government of that time, they must come up with an apology to the Armenians, Kurds, Arabs and of course to the Turks. And, yes, the Turkish state must come up with an apology to the Turkish nation and accept that it was a gross mistake to hide not only the 1915-17 events from the Turkish public but most other details of the dissolution period of the Ottoman Empire just for the sake of cutting the new republic from the Ottoman imperial past.Back in December 2001, talking at a conference in the Armenian capital Yerevan, I had tried to explain the deep sorrow I felt over what was lived in Anatolia during those years, but stressed that if there was a "communal" crime that required a "communal apology" there was absolutely a need for a mutual apology as Armenians were at least equally responsible of what was lived... But to what purpose an apology by an individual - who played no role in the calamity lived and who because of the state thrown veil on the issue learned some of what might have happened during those years in Anatolia only in the early 1970s, after the notorious Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia, ASALA, terrorist gang started a global terrorist campaign against Turkish diplomats - would serve?Thus, my objection to the "collective" but "individual" statement of a group of intellectuals - who were accused of being "traitors" in a counter collective statement by a group of retired ambassadors - was not to the entirety of the statement, but rather to the "apology" section that I found meaningless and indeed derogatory for an individual who has not played in any role in what was lived anyhow.We are a synthesis of common pastBut, still, I would like to make an apology... An apology to President Abdullah Gül... As a social democrat who opposes fascist, neo-Nazi, racist and discriminatory attitudes of any sort, I must underline that the allegations made by a social democratic parliamentarian lady that the president did not condemn the "apology" petition of a group of intellectuals was because he did not act as the president of the nation but rather, allowed his ethnic background to shape his attitudes... Later, the same lady even went a step further and charged that the grandmother of Gül was an Armenian and thus implied that because of his grandmother’s ethnic background the president was sympathetic to the initiative of the intellectuals...Correct or incorrect, the ethnic background of the grandmother of the President should be of no concern for the lady parliamentarian or anyone else. In a place like Anatolia, which has been the cradle of civilizations throughout history, is it possible for anyone - if he claims he is a Turk, a Kurd, an Arab or an Armenian, Caucasian or whatever - to prove his ethnic background? We are all a little bit of everything, but culturally we feel we belong to one of those ethnocultural groups. Thus, what we say, we are... If one feels he is a Turk, he is a Turk, or if he feels he is a Kurd or Armenian, so he is... Our cultural accumulation is our richness, and mind you, in all of us there is little bit of all ethnic cultures that existed in Anatolia over the centuries.To make racist and discriminatory comments about the ethnic backgrounds of individuals - irrespective of who they are and what posts they occupy in state administration - is nothing less than engaging in a very dangerous fascism campaign. Thus, I apologize to President Gül not because I was engaged in such a fascist attitude, but rather because in this age, despite all the past tragedies we lived, there are still examples of such a fascist mentality in this land...

Alexander Downer, the special advisor to the U.N. secretary-general for Cyprus, was in Ankara Thursday for a one-day trip to discuss the latest situation in the Cyprus talks process. A summary of Downer’s contacts in Ankara might be that he told Turkish officials he believed for a resolution on Cyprus the two parties should be allowed to have a "plan for Cyprus, written by Cypriots" Obviously, although the comprehensive talks for a resolution of the over 45-year-old problem of power sharing on the eastern Mediterranean island are continuing on Cyprus under "facilitating chairmanship" of Downer but both Greece and Turkey, the two motherlands of the two peoples of Cyprus, are very much interested in what’s going on there on the one hand and particularly for Turkey because of the spillover effects of the Cyprus problem on its European Union membership bid and the foreign policy complications Cyprus issue has been creating, a settlement on the island is of great importance.

While Turkey has been repeating at every opportunity its strong commitment to the Cyprus talks process that kicked off last spring three years after the collapse in 2004 of the so-called Annan plan, when Greek Cypriots rejected it in a referendum, because of a pending 2009 European Union evaluation of Turkey’s compliance with "normalization of relations with all EU member countries" and "enhancing the 1963 Association Agreement to cover all new EU members" Ñ the two conditions the EU had set to open accession talks with Ankara and which amount to Turkish recognition of the Greek Cypriot state as the "sole legitimate government" on Cyprus Ñ Turkey and Turkish Cypriots have been stressing all along the start of the latest exercise that there should be a deadline.

Meeting with the EU ambassadors in Ankara on Monday Foreign Minister Ali Babacan clearly stated that the Cyprus talks process must have a deadline, cannot be an open-ended exercise and disclosed that irrespective how long the talks continue Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots would not be able to establish full accord on everything and that at a "mature stage of talks" the United Nations must step in to breach the remaining gap between the positions of the two sides or if necessary to "fill in the blanks" in a draft settlement accord.

Cold shower from Downer
While that remark of the foreign minister and the chief EU negotiator received praise from the EU envoys, in talks with Babacan on Thursday, Downer reportedly gave a rather cold shoulder to the idea. The U.N. secretary-general’s special advisor for Cyprus reportedly recalled that one of the reasons behind the failure of the 2004 Annan plan was the insistence of the United Nations and the EU to impose a time frame on the talks and the decision of the then U.N. envoy, Alvaro de Soto, to "fill in the gaps" in the accord. According to diplomatic sources, Downer reportedly underlined that he would not accept to play further than a "facilitating role" in the talks between Turkish Cypriot President Mehmet Ali Talat and his Greek Cypriot counterpart Dimitrios Hristofias; ruled out the possibility of he taking up a pen at any stage of the talks and fill in the blanks of a draft accord; and underlined that the talks should continue as much as the two leaders wished so, although there were constraints produced by the real politik on the island as well as in Turkish-EU relations. Sources said Downer expected the talks continue in the current two meetings a week speed until February, intensify and conclude sometime in early summer and referendums be held simultaneously in both sides of the island in early autumn. Otherwise, they said, Downer was worried that the entire process might fall victim to the parliamentary and presidential elections in northern Cyprus in June 2009 and February 2010 respectively.

With regard to assuming an enhanced arbitrator, mediator role and to fill in the remaining blanks that Ankara has suggested, diplomatic sources said Downer believed that the "awful mistakes" of the Annan plan process should be avoided and the plan must be "one for Cypriots written by Cypriots." "The more the two leaders meet, the more they exchange opinions, the more they will commit themselves to the text they will produce. That is a must for success in the referendums to be held simultaneously on both sidesÉ" diplomatic sources said Downer was expected to tell Babacan.

Discussions on the Baghdad shoe incident continue all over the world. It was demonstrated in tens of letters from the readers to this writer; apparently everyone has an opinion on the issue and its compatibility with the ethics of journalism. While some are expressing their appreciation to the ducking talent of the lame duck outgoing U.S. President George W. Bush, many are expressing their admiration of the "skill" of the Iraqi journalist in shoe throwing, though because of the quick crouching of the U.S. president he missed the target...

To get it right, I must underline as well that even though the feelings the Iraqi journalist might have had when he threw his shoes at Bush are shared by a vast majority of Iraqis and people elsewhere angered with the "attack first, will find a reason later" mentality of Bush, obviously the duty of a journalist is not to throw anything but words at the news source. So said our benevolent Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan as well... He said he disapproved of the Iraqi journalist throwing his shoes at Bush and he believed it would have been more appropriate had he instead preferred to corner the American president with his words and ideas. Nothing wrong in what he said, however, to what extent do the words of the prime minister conform to the attitudes of the prime minister or to his relations with the Turkish media, caricaturists, or to his attitude vis a vis people criticizing him with words? Was it not Erdoğan who opened scores of libel suits against cartoonists? Was it not Erdoğan who barred seven correspondents from the Prime Ministry and from events he participates in? Was it not Erdoğan who called for a boycott of the newspapers and TV stations who have been reporting on the court process in Germany against the Islamist Deniz Feneri charity fund? Yes, journalists, cartoonists must use their pens and cameras rather than shoes in "cornering" politicians, but politicians should as well accustom themselves to criticisms of the media... After all, is it not because the media serves as a watchdog of the public interest that it is considered a fundamental element of the democratic system in a country? Disappointment with Babacan On Monday, Foreign Minister Ali Babacan, who is also Turkey’s chief negotiator, - at least for the time being - hosted a working luncheon with the ambassadors of the European Union countries. At that working luncheon Babacan "re-asserted" the commitment of his government to reform; underlined that after the March local polls the reform drive in Turkey would gain new momentum; and underlined that the draft National Program was a demonstration of the "strong political will" of the ruling Justice and Development Party, or AKP, government to undertake a comprehensive push to harmonize the legislative setup in the country with the EU acquis communitaire... The minister reportedly also reaffirmed Turkey’s strong commitment to the peace efforts on Cyprus within the UN framework and urged the two parties on the island, as well as Greece and Turkey, to remain focused on a settlement; stressed that the process could not be an open-ended one; and in an unexpected move, stressed that irrespective of how long the talks continue, Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots would not be able to establish full accord on everything and at a "mature stage of talks" the UN must step in to breach the remaining gap between the positions of the two sides or to fill in the blanks in a draft settlement accord... EU envoys talking with us about the luncheon have said regarding Cyprus, Babacan appeared to be more committed than ever to a negotiated settlement on the island and they appreciated that. However, as regards reforms and Turkey-EU relations, the ambassadors underlined that the minister preferred to talk with a generalized approach, did not go into details; could not even explain why all ministers had not yet signed the National Program or what reforms Turkey intends to undertake after the March polls. "We were not satisfied at all," an ambassador said, complaining of the lack of enthusiasm for reform in the AKP government. "Babacan was like a car dealer who was trying to sell a car that he knows well is broken and cannot be fixed..." What else can be said?

Not only Turks, but some of our European friends and allies as well have the habit of approaching everything with a "black or white" approach as if there are no mid tones, no grays...

For example, when often think that there is a European Union policy vis-a-vis the Turkish membership bid. However, a little concentration on the issue demonstrates that even individual parties in individual member countries do not have a clear-cut policy regarding the Turkish membership, though the "no" bloc appears to be more cohesive.Similarly, we assume that there is a strong commitment in the consecutive Turkish governments in pushing forward the EU bid of the country, but an examination of their performance clearly underlines there have been as many ups as downs and we kept on zig-zagging in between defending "peculiarities" of Turkey and conforming to the rules of the club we say we want to join in.While we managed to lift the death penalty (excluding times of war) during a coalition government in which the most nationalistic party of the country was a member and at a time when the number one public enemy, the chieftain of the separatist Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK, gang was on the death row, but we just could not eradicate the problems of the religious minorities at a time when we have a government and overwhelming parliamentary majority that we believe are mostly composed of devoted religious people and indeed have a discreet agenda of enhancing influence of religion in state administration.On the one hand our government vows "no tolerance to torture, ill treatment and degrading attitudes," but on the other hand with claims that labor groups or women’s groups were being made targets of merciless and brutal truncheons of police. Or, the same government who boasts of working the most to bring Turkey at par with European norms and values makes an amendment in the law on police duties and powers and allows it to "fire to kill." Since police regained three years ago that power Ñ which was originally withdrawn as part of compliance with EU norms Ñ 48 Turks lost their lives to police bullets, "died of natural causes" after being released from police stations or detention centers or somehow lost their lives after "banging their head on police cars." And this government still claims it is a reformist one who indeed is trying to promote individual rights and freedoms in the country... It is just like a very bad joke... Since mid-2005 the reform process just ducked down, dwarfed and vanished all together except in statements of the government figures. At the same time as was reflected in the statements of the French, Austrian and German leaders, a new and not so promising climate started to emerge in Europe regarding the Turkish membership.Report needs to be taken very seriouslyThe International Crisis Group released recently released a report which said that both Turkey and EU member states need to recall how much they have to gain from each other and quickly reverse a downward spiral that is otherwise likely to produce a breakdown in negotiations and new tension in the Mediterranean. The report stressed that the danger of a breakdown will be especially great if there is no Cyprus settlement in 2009. Some member states could seize on the issue to suspend membership negotiations, especially if Turkey does not open its ports to Greek Cypriot vessels by the fall. I could agree less with the stress made in the report that global rankings show that Turkey is seriously under-performing in terms of development, rights, transparency and democracy; EU-driven reforms have stalled, due to anger that Brussels accepted the Greek Cypriot-run Cyprus Republic as a member in May 2004 even though it was the Greek Cypriots who rejected the U.N. plan for reunification of the island; domestic political crises; institutional resistance to change; and the reluctance of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the ruling Justice and Development Party, or AKP, and main opposition parties to take political risks to move forward.What the report underlines are indeed nothing further than what we have been complaining and warning about for the past year... Because of the strong admiration for foreigners (was it an inferiority complex reflection?), let us hope that the government takes it more seriously than what domestic critics have been saying before it is too late...