Foreign policy and conflict resolution expert Ulrike Dufner said the European Union can do more to pressure the Greek side to solve the Cyprus issue, but it does not.

“Everybody accepts that the EU made a big mistake by accepting a divided Cyprus into the union, but nobody is willing to put pressure on the Greek side,” she told Today's Zaman for Monday Talk. “And if the EU states were more willing to take Turkey into the union, they would work harder to solve the Cyprus issue,” she added.Dufner, director of the Turkish branch of the Heinrich Böll Foundation since 2004, said the unsolved Cyprus issue is the biggest obstacle in front of Turkey's EU accession. ‘Everybody accepts that the EU made a big mistake by accepting a divided Cyprus into the union, but nobody is willing to put pressure on the Greek side. Nobody wants to deal with it. … And if the EU states were more willing to take Turkey into the union, they would work harder to solve the Cyprus issue' As there are continuing talks between the Turkish and Greek leaders of Cyprus, there are hopes for a breakthrough before the upcoming Turkish Cypriot elections, which could jeopardize the peace process if won by hard-liners. Meanwhile, Turkey refuses to open its ports and airports to Greek Cypriot traffic before the isolation of the Turkish side ends. Dufner answered our questions on the issue of Cyprus and more.How do you evaluate the development of civil society in Turkey compared to 15 years ago?Civil society activities in Turkey started as a result of work by human rights associations due to the fact that many of the political activists of the 1970s were tortured in prisons, or they were missing as a result of the Sept. 12 [1980] coup d'état. The year our foundation was established in 1994-1995 in Turkey, the Kurdish issue was in its hottest phase. In my opening speech at our 15th anniversary events, I compared the Republic Day speeches of former President Süleyman Demirel and President Abdullah Gül. It was interesting to see that Demirel was supporting the role of the military in politics, talking about internal enemies and the risk of separatism, and he was very much nationalistic to a degree of racism. Gül, on the other hand, was stressing that a multicultural society is Turkey's richness. When the civil society movement started in Turkey, there were NGOs only in İstanbul. But the number of them immensely increased, and there are a lot of them in other parts of Turkey. We had civil society representatives from more than 20 different provinces of Turkey attend our 15th year events on Jan. 23. Civil society has improved a lot.You have a lot of experience on the Kurdish issue. What are your observations about the government's initiative in that regard?When the government started the Kurdish opening, or the democratic initiative, however you want to name it, I preferred the “democratic opening” because there are doubts whether it's a Turkish or Kurdish issue. The intentions of the government and the first steps to involve diverse civil society organizations were good. But what is left?What do you think is left?The closing of the [Democratic Society Party] DTP. Yes, it was the decision of the Constitutional Court not the government, but the fact that it was a unanimous decision was disappointing. Then the attacks on Turkish soldiers, most probably done by some circles close to the [Kurdistan Workers' Party] PKK, and it has given the impression that the PKK is not homogenous and some parts of it did not support this opening. One can also criticize the manner regarding the reception of some Kurds from the Makhmour camp -- a hero-like reception was not appropriate in the beginning of a peace process. And later, a lot of elected mayors were put in prison. There is an impression that both the Kurds and the government were not well prepared for this initiative. The first moves were not orchestrated well by both sides.What could they have done to be better prepared? ‘Military seems not to understand its own society'What are your exciting projects for this year?Our next big project is a conference on the May 27, 1960 coup d'état in Turkey. We want to debate the meaning of it, interpretations that it was a progressive one, and comparisons of it to the 1980 coup d'état. I studied political science in one of the most liberal universities in Germany, but even there I learned that the 1960 coup d'état was a good one! We believe it's worth looking at the Constitution of 1961 since it was considered as one of the most liberal constitutions even in Europe at the time. It's also worth debating the tendency among the Kemalist and some leftist intellectuals favoring the military because it saves the country from internal enemies.Talking about military coups, there is document after document emerging through the Taraf daily about recent coup plans in Turkey. How do you perceive that?It is shocking that these are recent coup plans. Whatever their names are, “Balyoz” or “Sarıkız,” they repeat each other, and when you think about that you realize that the military was acting like a social engineer. I have the impression that the military doesn't have an understanding of its own society.Are you scared because minorities and foreigners are seen as enemies?I am because I live on “Adalar” [the Princes' Islands], one of the prime targets of military's Cage action plan. What makes me scared is that the military continues making one coup plan after another. They want to put certain elite into prison, and they continue their coup plans. They might be continuing until now. On the other hand, if a part of the military continues with those plans, it is because they have society's support. They have the support against foreigners and non-Muslim minorities. That's very scary. Taraf did a very good job in publishing this information, although I don't like the way they do it, the scandalous approach. They should have had a better understanding of the situation and not turn it into a win-lose situation. The government needed to talk with the leading Kurdish people in the region on how they would be able to convince their constituency. What is very disappointing is the fact that people like Ahmet Türk, who is a person that can talk to both sides, cannot be politically active for five years. He is banned from politics! You can't blame anybody if this leads to a radicalization of politics. The state once more imposed that they are the ones who can initiate any progress on the Kurdish issue and the voices of the Kurds are not important. This leads to a huge disappointment for civil society members who do not belong to any political parties but who are pro-Kurdish and who think independently either from the government or the PKK. They now have no possibility to channel their views. At the moment, I don't see any way out of this situation.‘Cyprus is big obstacle in front of Turkey's EU accession'Do you see any signs of progress on the issue of Turkey's accession to the European Union? What is the biggest obstacle in that regard?The biggest obstacle is the Cyprus issue. Turkey cannot enter the EU without solving this problem. We recently had some meetings with German diplomats in Turkey, and I've got the impression that the German officials are not willing to accept Turkey's arguments for not opening its ports and airports to the Greek Cypriot vessels. My argument was that Turkey and the Turkish Cypriots supported the Annan Plan back in 2004 and the Greek Cypriots did not. Turkey, therefore, was disappointed by the EU. Everybody accepts that the EU made a big mistake by accepting a divided Cyprus to the union, but nobody is willing to put pressure on the Greek side. Nobody wants to deal with it.Could this be because a persisting Cyprus problem would be a good pretext for not accepting Turkey into the EU?If you look at it from the international perspective, it is an issue concerning the United Nations, and the EU inherited the problem. But countries like Germany who are hesitant about Turkey's accession to the EU can always use the issue of Cyprus. The German view is one-sided and does not take Turkey's position into consideration regarding the Cyprus issue. And if the EU states were more willing to take Turkey into the union, they would work harder to solve the Cyprus issue.‘Turkey is not moving away from the West, but…'From Turkey's EU accession debate, we can move into the discussion of the country's orientation and whether or not it is moving away from the West. Do you think Turkey is moving away from the West? PROFILE:Ulrike Dufner, foreign policy and conflict resolution expertDirector of the Heinrich Böll Foundation in Turkey since January 2004, she is an expert on foreign policy and international relations, conflict resolution and management regarding Turkey and the Near and Middle East. Dufner previously served for two years in the Foreign Office of the Federal Republic of Germany at the Turkey and South Caucasus desks. Between 1996 and 2002, she served as an adviser on international politics, conflict management and resolution and international human rights issues with special emphasis on the Near and Middle East as well as Maghreb countries at the parliamentary group of Alliance 90/The Greens in the German Bundestag. She also took an active role in feminist, peace and environmental movements in Germany and conducted research in Egypt and Turkey. In 1996, she received her doctorate in political science, Turkology and modern history. We started a foreign policy program last year because we felt a need to have a debate on Turkish foreign policy. When the Turkish foreign minister said Turkey is going to have a more proactive policy regarding its Eastern neighbors, some Western observers thought that Turkey does not care anymore about European interests in the region and acts without consulting the EU. For example, regarding Turkey's policies toward Israel, which is a country that should be criticized, one should do it in another way.How do you think Turkey can change its way of criticizing Israel?Turkey's argument in that regard should not follow a religious discourse, Muslims versus Jews. Turkey, especially Prime Minister [Recep Tayyip] Erdoğan is not very successful in handling this issue. If Erdoğan really wants to bring up the human rights violations by the Israeli government or the military forces, he should not talk about his Muslim sisters and brothers but instead be interested in the human rights of any human beings independent of religious orientation. Otherwise, this is similar to the discourse followed by former US President George W. Bush, who often used the line Christians versus Muslims. Leaders should avoid dividing the world into religious communities.If we go back to the question of Turkey's orientation.Yes, I don't think the EU is happy about Turkey's recent no visa policy toward Syria and Lebanon, considering the fact that the Schengen visa system puts big walls around Europe. They are probably very scared about this process. Regarding Israel, Turkey could cooperate with its European partners to coordinate its policies.But aren't the EU states shy about being critical of Israel? Some European observers even say Turkey does what the EU wants but can't do in that regard.Yes, that's right. Germany would prevent an action by the EU on this matter, but what Turkey can do is that it can cooperate with some member states. That's what's missing. The way Turkey is doing it leads to it losing its credibility.The question of whether or not Turkey is moving away from the West…No, Turkey is not moving away from the West, although the debate is going more and more in this direction. What Turkey is doing is that it is devising its foreign policy without taking into consideration the interests of its allies -- which is a risk. In regards to Turkey's rapprochement with Iran, there is an argument that it will increase the possibility of Turkey being a moderator between Iran and the EU. That can only be functional if you are coordinating your policy with the EU.‘Not sure where Ergenekon is going'You have been in Turkey since 2004. How do you compare Turkey in 2004 to Turkey in 2010?When I arrived in 2004, it was the spring of EU accession. Everybody was talking about the reform process and the EU accession of Turkey as the negotiations between Turkey and the EU started in 2005. And 2007 was a turning point for many people because of Hrant Dink's murder. Today in 2010, nobody is sure where the country is going. In 2004, everybody was willing to take part in the democratization of the country, but today there are too many ups and downs. Individuals need to feel that their personal investments, not in terms of money, lead to something. There is not much hope in that regard.What is your perspective on the Ergenekon case in that regard?There was a lot of hope when it started, but at a certain point, critics said that this trial has been used for political purposes, and you can't avoid criticisms in such a sensitive case. People are not sure where the case is going. On one side, they are in favor of this trial; on the other side, they see mistakes during the course of the trial and lost in the process. The EU always said Turkey should take the rules of fair trial into consideration. The disappointing factor is that there is not much support for the Ergenekon case from the Kurdish side. They could have supported the case by providing more information on the extrajudicial killings. It did not happen.What could be the reason behind this?There is speculation that some parts of the Kurdish movements are closely connected with the deep state elements and that's why they are reluctant to bring extrajudicial killings to trial. 08 February 2010, MondayYONCA POYRAZ DOĞAN  İSTANBUL