EU and Turkey: friends or foes?

Article published in Cafebabel

 Erdogan and Jean-Claude Junker at the European Commission.Google ©

Brussels was the stage for yet another Summit with a focus on Turkey and the current refugee ‘crisis’. Amongst the outcomes of the controversial deal, the Byzantine country requested an extra €3 billion from the European Union amidst Western criticisms over Turkish authorities seizing an opposition news agency. 

Another Summit 

Nothing has really evolved since the last Summit, in November 2015, when Turkey agreed to cooperate with the EU in exchange for facilitated mobility within the Union, a pre-requisite for a gradual full membership. Early in February 2016, the Member States decided on an agreement on how to finance the €3 billion EU refugee facility for Turkey; thereby, the EU is set to disburse €1 billion, and the Member States another €2 billion. The contributions from the Member States are based on their gross national income (GNI) and you can see here how much each Member States will pay out. 

At the last EU-Turkey Summit (March 7th), Turkey demanded an extra €3 billion to handle the flux of refugees wedged in the country. Also part of the arguable deal is to withdraw “irregular migrants”, including Syrians, crossing from Turkey to Greece, and for each Syrian sent back, a Syrian in Turkey would be resettled in the EU, as well as the creation of safety zones in Syria. EU leaders are considering the Turkish proposal amidst a chorus of voices calling on protection and dignity for the migrants. Next week, yet another Summit will decide the fate of the migrants and refugees. 

Nonetheless, the relocation plan introduced in May 2015 was originally intended to send 40,000 asylum seekers from Italy and Greece to other Member States. Later on, in September, the number rose to 160,000 relocations. Until the present moment, only 660 migrants have been placed in Italy and Greece. In Portugal, due to receive 2,883 migrants but so far only with 63, many social institutions are fully prepared to receive migrants but they seem not to arrive. Why is the EU being so sluggish rolling on from Summit to Summit? 

The Unspoken Voices of Refugees and Migrants 

After the plan had been formally announced, a rain of critics fell over the decision-makers. “Refugees should not be used as bargaining chips. The integrity of the EU’s asylum system, indeed the integrity of European values, is at stake,” said Bill Frelick, Refugees’ Director in Human Rights Watch. 

Iverna McGowan, Head of Amnesty International in Europe, claimed “ the idea of bartering refugees for refugees is not only dangerously dehumanizing, but also offers no sustainable long term solution to the ongoing humanitarian crisis.” 

After closing its borders with Syria, Turkish guards are allegedly shooting at Syrian refugees drifting near the borders. This perturbing disclosure was recently announced by RT, where Andrew Gardner, researcher on Turkey for Amnesty International, asserted that Turkish guards regularly shoot refugees stuck at the border with Syria. “Now, the information we received via Syria doctors is that there are reports of two or three people being shot every day trying to cross the border irregularly,” he said.

Green MEP Ska Keller has not hidden her indignation concerning this delicate situation. “Turkey is a country that uses its army against its own people, it is a country where reportedly border guards have shot at refugees, it is a country where press freedom is under attack and the European Commission wants to declare it a safe third country? Does the European Commission really believe this?” As for the Parliament’ President Martin Schulz, “for the benefit of refugees, we need to cooperate with Turkey,” he said. 

“The commission – which had no problem telling Greeks which way to vote in July 2015 – would surely have no problem supporting democratic parties against repressive ones in Turkey,” wrote Paul Mason in The Guardian. 

Freedom of Expression in Turkey 

The Turks, under Erdogan’s administration, are suffering a violent curb on their civil liberties and freedom of expression. On March 4th, Zaman, the largest opposition newspaper in Turkey, was seized. While the team was waiting for a police raid on their offices, the network channel CNN Turk was running a story on an earthquake in Japan. 

Zaman’s team is deeply concerned with the future of freedom of expression in Turkey.  Segvi Akarçesme © Twitter 

On March 8th, Cihan news agency was yet another victim from the Turkish government, which will now appoint administrators to run the newspaper. Both Cihan and Zaman are part of the Feza Gazetecilik media company. In late November 2015, Tahir Elci, a Turkish human rights lawyer was killed in cold blood, in the middle of the street in southeast Turkey, while doing declarations to the press. Elsi had faced a criminal charge for supporting Kurdish rebels. Is death remains unclear. 

On November 22th 2015, the co-president of left party HDP (Peoples’ Democratic Party), Selahattin Demirtaş, escaped an assassination attempt while he was inside of his armored car. The HDP is a secular opposition party, which supports and defends the existence of the Kurdish people. After the general elections in June 2015, the HDP managed to assemble 13,12% of the electorate, becoming the fourth political force in Turkey. According to Index Censorship, 7 journalists were killed in Turkey since 2014, and 2 were killed so far in 2016. 

Conclusions 

The EU is between a rock and a hard place. Facing itself with thousands of migrants and refugees at its doors, Europe needs external support to be able to control and manage the process of integration – especially from Turkey, the country with the power to control the flow of migrants into Europe. In turn, Turkey insists in becoming member of the EU, asking for free-visas before the ends of the year. At the same time, Erdogan seeks an ally in the EU, after relations with the US became worse following alleged American support for Syrian Kurds. Nonetheless, the sealed deal between the EU and Turkey seems to go beyond the comprehension of democratic minds. 

To begin with, scrutinising migrants into “regular” and “irregular” should be considered a Human Rights’ violation, especially considering that many of them are currently paperless, doomed to become statelessness. Second, the creation of safety zones in Syria? Seriously? Third, according to the Copenhagen criteria defined in 1993 by the Council, any Nation that wish to become a member state must comply with a number of principles, including the guarantee of democracy, the rule of law, the respect for human rights and the protection of minorities. Do I need to wonder whether Turkey fits the criteria? Will the EU close its eyes and continue shaking hands with a non-democratic leader in exchange of facilities?

NATO’s Emergency Meeting: Is PKK behind the curtain?

Article published in Cafebabel

Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the controversial president of Turkey. unaoc © Flickr

Turkey called a controversial emergency meeting with NATO. Is Erdogan targeting the Islamic State or taking revenge on the Kurds, after an historic result in the last elections? 

On 27 July, Turkey requested an extraordinary meeting at NATO headquarters, in Brussels. Article 4 of the founding treaty of the US led alliance enables all 28 members to request for consultations whenever they believe their “territorial integrity, political independence or security” is in danger. At stake is the so-called threat imposed by the Islamic State (IS), which has been increasing its sphere of influence. It has already destabilised the southern border of Turkey, killing over thirty people and injuring more than one hundred in Suruç, on 20 July, according to the mainstream media. This bloody event has placed Turkey directly in the conflict, as Turkish warplanes began striking militants targets in Syria last week. 

Since NATO’s creation in 1949, there have been only four extraordinary meetings under Article 4, the last, a requested by Poland in March 2014, following Russia’s annexation of Crimea. According to NATO’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg: "NATO allies follow developments very closely and stand in solidarity with Turkey." 

IS: an excuse to weaken PKK? 

Nevertheless, Turkey has seized the chance to attack Kurdish militants in strikes, risking a feeble peace process within the country. Listed as a terrorist organisation internationally by several states and organisations, including NATO and the European Union, President Erdogan probably thinks that this is the right moment to weaken the PKK. It is important to note that countries like India, China, Russia, Switzerland and Egypt do not recognise PKK as a terrorist or any kind of perilous organisation. 

However, the Kurds in Syria have been the most effective forces against the Islamic State as it was proved in Kobane. After having joined the fight against the Islamic State, some doubts have arisen amongst politicians worldwide as to whether the group should or should not be considered a terrorist organisation. Moreover, since 2014, throughout the media, mainly online, headlines backing up PKK’s actions and therefore question its progressive status have been growing, since the Kurds have been sacrificing their lives in Syria and Iraq. Even though, Turkish Prime Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu has told the press “there is no difference between PKK and Daesh (Islamic State). You can’t say that PKK is better because it is fighting Daesh.” On the other hand, voices claiming PKK’s neutral stance has risen, including some coming from the European Union. According to POLITICO, Hadi al-Amiri, the leader of a powerful Iraqi Shi’a paramilitary organisation show that in fact Turkey is actually supporting the Islamic State as it's weakening its crucial enemy in Iraq, the PKK. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has urged President Erdogan to “keep measures appropriate”. It is indeed a very diplomatic way of asking for some consideration for the Kurdish community – so far allies against the same enemy – but Germany maintain its towards Turkey. As for EU’s foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini, she called on Turkish foreign minister to encourage the government to return to negotiations with the PKK. 

The PKK was formed in 1978 and between 1984 and 2013 it has waged a military struggle against the Turkish state, demanding for cultural and political rights as well as the self-determination for the Kurds in Turkey, representing 10% to 25% of the total population. 

Elections in Turkey gave seats to Kurdish Party 

In the beginning of June 2015, Turkey’s ruling party, AKP, lost its majority after 13 years in power. The surprised outcome came along with pro-Kurdish HDP, People’s Democratic Party, gaining 13,12% of the electorate, securing 80 seats for the first time in the Grand National Assembly of Turkey. This was a major shake for current President Erdogan, who was expecting a majority and intending to change the Constitution in order to implement a presidential system in the country. A HDP deputy, Sirri Sureyya Onder said "this was a victory of democracy over political corruption... of peace over war." 

This election gave hope to the entire Kurdish community, who suddenly got to see their voices being represented in the Assembly and therefore bigger chances for the creation of a Kurdish nation. 

 Conclusions 

Aiming to create a jihadist-free buffer zone in Syria, Erdogan is risking a civil war in his own country. It seems very explicit to the international community that the main goal of Turkey is the eradication of PKK. Now, with the hostilities in the air, “no man’s land” is now labeled in many territories across eastern Turkey as yesterday (2nd August), two Turkish troops died following a suicide attack by Kurdish PKK militants, according to BBC. Nevertheless, since 24 July, Turkey has been carrying out raids on PKK bases. Who is to blame then? 

In my opinion, we can’t really point a finger and blame the Kurds just because they were identified as a terrorist organisation by some countries as well as institutions, which happen to maintain good relations with Turkey. This is a problem which roots are deeply connected with societal motives and therefore with the capacity of the human being to accept the other. The Israeli-Palestinian case is comparable, even though the disparities between the two rival groups are even wider in the latter. 

The Syrian civil war is somehow being positive for the Kurds who have been able to show their strength and determination fighting the Islamic State. But the famous saying “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” is apparently not suitable for the Kurdish community, according to the Turkish President. 

The conflict has just rekindled and the extraordinary meeting at NATO headquarters was just a question of diplomacy, a political necessity to justify unjustifiable actions. How much more bloodshed will we have to be confronted with?

The Pipeline Dilemma: Russia turns to Turkey and Juncker calls Putin's bluff

Article published in Cafebabel

Putin's Turkish bluff was called out by the EU. World Economic Forum © Flickr

The construction of the South Stream pipeline supposed to deliver gas from Russia to the South of Europe is facing some hurdles due to the tensions between West and East. 

What is the South Stream Project? 

Back in 2012, Russian energy giant Gazprom began the construction of the South Stream pipeline, which was supposed to deliver gas to Bulgaria, Italy, Hungary, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and Austria via the Black Sea. The pipeline, a €29 billion project, would have supplied the energy needs of southern Europe. According to estimates, the South Stream had the potential to provide 20% of the gas demand in the European Union. 

However, some hurdles sprung up on the development of the pipeline as relations between West and East got colder. With the Russian invasion of Ukraine in March 2014, a wave of Western condemnations arose towards the Kremlin, influencing the EU’s desire to find a sustainable solution to the South Stream project. Bulgaria, the country supposed to be the main doorway to Europe for Russian gas, blocked the development of the Russian project under pressure from the US and the EU. 

Gazprom, an ominous figure in the European pipeline dilemma. Martin Griffiths © Flickr 

Back in 2008, Gazprom and the EU countries signed an agreement – known as Third Energy Package – which determines that a single enterprise can’t both produce and deliver oil and gas. Suddenly, Putin was confronted with Bulgaria’s deadlock as well as an EU law which made the project’s continuance difficult. 

The point of South Stream was to deliver gas directly to the EU, avoiding Ukrainian territory due to the rows between Russia and Ukraine. Germany, France and Italy are connected to this project as they were strategic partners in South Stream. South Stream AG was the name of the company created to build and manage this ambitious project, where 50% is owned by Gazprom, 20% by Italian ENI, 15% by French EDF and the last 15% belongs to the German Wintershall. 

Western and Eastern Reactions 

During an official visit to Ankara on December 1st, Putin said he was forced to withdraw the South Stream project in partnership with the EU. However, he announced a new strategic cooperation with Turkey. Moscow will also reduce gas prices for Turkish consumers by 6% from January 1st 2015. “We are ready to further reduce gas process along with the implementation of our joint large-scale projects,” added Putin. He also advanced that Russia is prepared to construct a new pipeline to meet Turkey’s gas demand. Certainly a strategic partnership, as the border between Turkey and Greece is crucial for gas distribution in southern Europe. 

Moreover, the Russian President has instigated possible rows between Bulgaria and the EU, underlining the EU's control over Bulgaria’s sovereignty and urging the Bulgarian government to react. “If Bulgaria is prevented from behaving as a sovereign state, then at least let them ask for money from the European Commission for lost income – the direct budget revenues that Bulgaria would have had from [gas] transit were at least €400 million a year,” incited Putin. 

Juncker refuses to let Russia blackmail Bulgaria about the South Stream pipeline. Jean-Claude Juncker © Flickr 

European Commission President Juncker reacted by saying he wouldn’t accept Russia's blackmail or the Bulgarians and he added that “the South Stream can be built,” yet EU Energy Minister, Gunther Oettinger, said the South Stream project would not move forward if Russia didn’t recognise the new government in Kiev. European countries have been trying to reduce their dependence on Russian energy. Jerome Ferrier, head of the International Gas Union, said, however, that “Europe can’t totally do without Russian gas.” 

From the Bulgarian side, Prime Minister Bojiko Borisov said Russia has not yet given any official announcement about the project’s cancellation. Furthermore, Borisov also manifested Bulgaria’s willingness as well as the Commission’s to keep on going with the project. One thing is certain: Russia's tactic to undermine relations within the EU is working; not only because of the sudden direction's shift in regards to commercial partnership with Turkey, but also because of Putin's alleged financing to extreme far-right European parties.

Europe's Reaction to the Islamic State

Article published in Cafebabel

Air strikes against ISIS. © Stuart Rankin

As the situation in Syria and Iraq gets out of control, the international community has gathered in order to tackle the big threat which the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) represents to Europe and the whole world. 

What began as an atrocious civil war in 2011 in Syria, has degenerated into a deadly repressive system that, along with Northern Iraq, is under the control of radical extremists who created a caliphate – a territory roughly the size of Portugal or Belgium. The actual war being fought is a regional and sectarian one likely to spread across Islam worldwide. The development of an armed and obstinate opposition movement in Syria, along with the discontentment of the Iraqi people under Nouri al-Maliki's leadership, resulted in the actual conflict that is taking place in Syria and Iraq. 

After the beheading of American hostages James Foley and British Steven Sotloff, the United States decided to attack the region occupied by ISIS, not only in retaliation but also as an attempt to exterminate this recent but strong and growing caliphate. The Islamic State has been provoking the Western community with repeated beheadings of Western hostages. The episodes of violence and disrespect for Human Rights are increasing and many European capitals agreed that it is time for action. 

Despite attempts by France’s Foreign minister Laurent Fabius to avoid France’s entrance into this bloodshed, after the announcement of the death of Hervé Gourdel, a French citizen, France has joined the USA in this air war. But the number of volunteers in this combat against ISIS is growing faster. In late September, the UK Parliament voted to join the coalition made up by the USA, France and Arab states. Also, Belgium and Denmark announced their support with military intervention. Likewise, Portuguese National Defence Minister José Pedro Aguiar Branco assured Portugal’s participation in the international coalition against the Islamic State. According to the online platform "Notícias ao Minuto," the minister said that “the collaboration might happen through several ways such as training, intelligence or humanitarian help.” 

The powerful European country known as Germany hasn't expressed so far any kind of support in this mission to overthrow ISIS. However, Interior German Minister Thomas de Maiziere has advised that ISIS is a “threat to public security in Germany,” making the distribution of propaganda material promoting the Islamic State illegal. 

Kurdish protest in Brussels. © Die Linke 

Meanwhile, the European Parliament was the stage for a Kurdish protest, last Tuesday, urging support in defending Kobane, the Syrian town overrun by the Islamic State. Turkey is under pressure to help Kurdish forces and after almost three weeks of fighting, the Islamic State controls about a third of the town, according to activists. "We don't understand why France is acting in Iraq and not in Kurdistan in Syria," said Fidan Unlubayir, member of the Federation of Kurdish Associations of France. The Western community is taking this strategy very cautiously to avoid any kind of complications regarding international justice laws. 

Nevertheless, the US and UK have already warned that air strikes alone won't stop ISIS fighters from overtaking Kobane. This is an important and dangerous move that will allow the rebels from the Islamic State to have control over a strategic wing between the two countries. The international community is apprehensive and awaiting further developments regarding this hideous battle. According to Foreign Policy Magazine, Turkey is currently in discussions with new NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg about a possible action against ISIS. "We are holding talks,” Turkey's Foreign Minister Cavusoglu said. “Once there is a common decision, Turkey will not hold back from playing its part." 

As we see the developments of this international strategy, we can't help but compare it with the first "war against terrorism," yet this time with greater international intervention and larger consequences if not suppressed. But we should ask ourselves... Is History repeating itself?