An immoral proposal to Turkey with European cunning

Let us accept that placing the free movement and visa exemption agreement, which had already been tied to a certain timetable between Turkey and the EU, into the package of solutions for migrants was a complete example of European cunning. The EU had even been prepared to risk the solution package proposed to Turkey for refugees being contrary to the UN law on refugees.

This wretched position into which the EU, which displays a meddlesome sensitivity on human rights for the propaganda of "European Values," has fallen in the face of refugees also shows how hollow the European ideal is. To lift a finger for the human tragedy of which a different scene unfolds every day in Syria, it only waited for the people fleeing this tragedy to wash up on its own shores as refugees.

If what washed up on its shores were only the corpses of refugees, it would again have been no problem for it.

But when these refugees came and sought to share its comfort, we saw that the EU suddenly began to take an interest, at a somewhat different level, in the situation in Syria.

The EU needs Turkey's help in order to meet the refugee problem at the cheapest cost. But even in order to call Turkey to help, what it promises Turkey amounts to nothing other than standing by the visa exemption promise that had already been given before. Indeed, the free movement application, which in the timetable promised and agreed in 2013 was envisaged to be passed in October 2016, is being put into this package. Moreover, it does not give this unconditionally either. It quietly places into the package, as an obligation that Turkey must fulfill, the demand for the definition of terror to be redone and the fight against terror to be softened. This European cunning, this greed to get everything for free and to profit even from what it spends, reveals all its ill intentions as well.

While Turkey is giving martyrs every day in the field in the fight against terror, that the EU can make this immoral offer to Turkey is essentially a move that would require Turkey to review its relations with the EU.

We saw, and we see, that in their own countries, when even a thousandth of it takes place, they can immediately put into operation fascist-style practices against terror. The DAESH terrorist organization has altogether only a few deadly actions within Europe, but today no one can engage in the slightest propaganda in favor of DAESH terror or in a discourse legitimizing terror in the face of Europe's counter-terror reflexes. European democracy and freedom of expression immediately readjusted their limits according to DAESH and took on their harshest form. Martial law practices in France and Belgium are still continuing.

In Turkey there already exists a political party that openly defends terror.

Admittedly, the conduct of such a party goes far beyond the limits of society's tolerance. In return, if it did not get involved with terror, if it could truly stay within the limits of politics, the limits of Turkey's democracy and freedom of expression are wide enough to embrace this political party and its side formations as well.

Turkey today has no deficit of democracy, there is even a surplus, and this surplus leads to the normalization and justification of terror, murder, villainy, aid and harboring of terror.

Where there is actual or discursive aid and harboring of terror, there is a dominion of terror. Let no one try to deceive anyone; no democracy can keep its own limits this wide.

In return, the indifference, even support, that the EU, which suspends all its principles and the limits of democracy in the face of its own pains, displays toward the terror that Turkey suffers has become an obstacle to the relationship continuing in this state.

This move is the EU's open support for terror against Turkey and, before being a wrong against Turkey, it is a crime.

The EU has almost made committing this crime routine. The poses that EU parliamentarians gave while enthusiastically singing PKK anthems together with PKK militants are support and encouragement of terror for which an account must be given.

And a Union that gives support to terror must give an account of its own crime before questioning any process regarding democracy or human rights in Turkey.

The EU, which has been shown to need to take a lesson in humanity from Turkey on the refugee issue, should see that it is far from being in a position to teach Turkey a lesson on the fight against terror now as well, and that on the contrary it is in a position to learn a great deal about how the fight against terror can be conducted within the limits of democracy.

Just yesterday in Şemdinli 8 of our soldiers were martyred as a result of terrorist attacks. In the bomb attack that PKK terrorists carried out on a police vehicle in Diyarbakır, 3 people died and dozens were wounded. That those who died inside the police bus were PKK suspects being taken to a doctor's examination is only a coincidence. One of the suspects who died in the attack was also a member of the Metropolitan municipal council. The next day, 5 terrorists died and 25 people were wounded when bombs that PKK terrorists had prepared with the aim of killing dozens of people exploded while being transported. Every day dozens of such terror attacks take place in different parts of Turkey, and these attacks can currently be freely made a subject of propaganda by a political party as a people's struggle of resistance.

Let alone softening the fight against terror or making a definition of terror of the kind the EU wants, on the contrary, the need to redefine the limit of those who look upon terror kindly and give it aid and harboring has gained complete urgency.

Because there is no country in which terror can be supported so easily and openly. Let them not try to deceive either themselves or us: if one shifted a thousandth of the PKK terror to EU countries, it would throw all the standards of democracy, of freedom of expression and of living together into disarray there too.