PACE's Turkey politics

The decision taken by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on Turkey was, to put it in the mildest terms, partisan and political. PACE, of which Turkey is among the founding members, had decided to take Turkey out of monitoring during the AK Parti's period in government. The reforms carried out during the AK Parti governments in areas such as human rights, the rule of law and state accountability had brought about a change in Turkey's status in this organization. Although there has been no reversal of any of these reforms in Turkey, PACE, when one of its own members opposes it, is in effect trying to neutralize it by playing this card against it. The attempt to silence by this means Turkey, which at worst represents a dissenting position or voice within this assembly, also exposes the irony of the "democratic level" so generously voiced against Turkey in the meantime. For all of the practices that are the subject of the criticisms directed at Turkey and Erdoğan in this decision exist in the member states themselves.

To evaluate PACE's decision in a healthier way, it may be productive to make a comparison with the report the OSCE published after the referendum and the attitude of the OSCE representatives. As we have said before,

the political engagements of those who prepared the report determined the report's content and its aim.

According to the figures announced by the YSK, in order to be able to argue that a referendum in which 87% of registered voters took part was not in line with democratic criteria, the authors of the report had been obliged to put forth brand new "case law."

The aim was

to create a new area of crisis in Turkey-Europe relations, which have followed a fluctuating course in the last few years, and moreover, by opening the legitimacy of the referendum in Turkey to question at the international level,

to pave the way for a chaotic process in Turkey.

The OSCE report also gave certain people in Europe the opportunity they had been waiting for. A terrifying increase was observed in anti-Turkey rhetoric. PACE's decision to place Turkey under monitoring again has to be seen as an extension of this process. Just like the OSCE, PACE, which is not an institution operating within the body of the EU but can influence EU mechanisms,

through the decision it took aims to sharpen the attitude that has recently developed in certain circles aimed at making Turkey-EU relations difficult politically.

A number of developments after PACE's decision confirm this inference. Most recently,

the European Parliament's Turkey Rapporteur Kati Piri, in her report submitted to the European Parliament, called on the EU to suspend negotiations with Turkey.

The points rapporteur Piri, who makes intense efforts to show her hostility to Turkey openly every time, emphasizes in her latest report lay bare the real aim.

According to the report by Voice of America based on the draft report, Kati Piri puts forward the proposal to halt negotiations in the event that the changes made to the constitution with the latest referendum are implemented without being changed.

It is rather interesting that the referendum is being shown as the justification for the call to suspend negotiations.

For example, when it was decided that a single currency would be used in EU member states for deepening and making permanent the integration of Europe, some EU member states said they would take this decision of the EU to a referendum. After a "no" vote came out of the referendum, they did not join the Eurozone. No EU official made a statement such as "if the referendum decision is implemented in full, this would happen or that would happen, or should happen."

Interestingly,

institutions like PACE and the OSCE did not call, in the negotiation processes of countries that are now EU members and still grapple with serious problems such as bribery and corruption and experience problems of governance and stability, to say that these countries were not qualified for EU membership, or call for the suspension of negotiations.

In these countries there are still serious violations of minority rights and violations of law. Moreover,

in a country like France, the apple of Europe's eye (!), a state of emergency has been going on for a year.

The exercise of personal rights and freedoms is seriously restricted. There is no voice from the OSCE and PACE. But when it comes to Turkey, a voice comes out of every head.

Millions of voters, citizens of the Republic of Turkey, went to the ballot box and made a choice. There were those who voted yes and those who voted no. Not all of those who voted no were CHP or HDP supporters. That is, it was not a monolithic whole. We respected the choice of all of these people who made a choice about the future of their country. But

the rule of the game, valid everywhere in the world, was this: 50%+1 of the votes was enough for the winner to be determined.

A result emerged with a difference of about one and a half million votes.

What is it to question this decision, to open the legitimacy of this decision to debate, to blackmail Turkey in various ways to reverse this decision!

That Kati Piri, who speaks aestheticizing a mafia-like language, conditions economic aid on the EU in order to force Turkey into changes, and proposes additions on human rights and similar issues for the updating of the Customs Union agreement, is the clearest indicator of this mafia-like language of blackmail. So much so that the rapporteur is not even aware that the EU has not kept its promises to Turkey regarding Syrian refugees.

With these developments it has once again emerged that the institutions in Europe have been unable to understand what was experienced in Turkey on 15 July, or do not want to understand.

At this point there is a third answer to the question of why they have developed such an attitude and policy, or rather a possibility that grows stronger with every passing day: behind the 15 July coup attempt there were representatives of these institutions in Europe, and what they could not accomplish on 15 July through treacherous terrorists they are now seeking to accomplish through various games.

The political decisions taken by the OSCE and PACE will not turn Turkey from its path, and Turkey will allow neither this nor interference in its internal affairs.

It is certain that the settings in relations with Europe and the EU have been thrown off.

If there are matters in this that Turkey needs to pay attention to and correct, Turkey will do its part today as it did in the past.

It must not be forgotten that the architect of the reforms that enabled Turkey and the EU to begin full membership negotiations is the AK Parti.

There is a governing party in Turkey that has adopted democratic values, human rights and the rule of law not because they are EU criteria but because its own citizens deserve to have these values applied to the best standards and because it believes in these values, and has taken many steps in this direction.

However, there are many more steps that Europe and the EU must take for relations to return to normal settings.

For instance, how can we be expected to make an alliance relationship permanent with EU member states while members of the separatist terrorist organization are protected and looked after by these countries? Whether to regulate relations with Turkey on the basis of the nonsense prepared by people like Kati Piri, who is clear by whom they are used, is of course a matter for the EU and the other institutions in Europe to decide. But they must not forget that Turkey's patience also has a limit.