The very "instructive" report of the EP

The report that the European Parliament routinely publishes on Turkey came to the fore this time solely because of its sections on pressure on journalists. Its coming to the fore and its immediately becoming material for political debates because of this aspect happened at one and the same time.

True, it is not as though it could not become material, but how much and what those who make it material have taken upon themselves in this tradition of reports so far is also instructive. Especially the fact that circles which gave no credit at all to these reports because of what was said in earlier reports on Cyprus and the Aegean, on the Kurdish question or human rights violations, on the issue of minorities in Turkey, or on Armenian matters, suddenly embrace the report today on account of the practices toward journalists is not something to be passed over.

First, these reports are not saying something for the first time about journalists or about freedom of the press and of thought. In earlier reports, too, the matter of journalists in detention was frequently raised, but in none of them were those sections of the report even taken into consideration. Back then the report was criticized quite a lot for those very sections. More interesting still, this time too there are again a great many sections on those well-known subjects.

All the topics in the part of the report concerning Turkey's foreign relations are brought back to the Cyprus question, and the need for Turkey to take steps on this matter is expressed in an irritating approach. At the same time, Turkey is criticized for conducting its foreign policy, from Israel to issues in the Middle East, without taking the EU's policies into consideration, and Turkey is asked to mend its relations with Israel.

And where does this "care" recommended to Turkey come from, when none of the EU countries has an established policy on this matter? In fact, politicians from EU countries at times admit this themselves. Perhaps the best thing Turkey, as perhaps an EU candidate country, has done on behalf of the EU is the policy it has implemented in the Middle East and Central Asia. Why is the EU disturbed by a policy that solves problems and prioritizes regional cooperation and development? Moreover, Turkey has already tied the solution of many problems to the condition of EU membership, since the steps it would take without being a member are not at all in Turkey's interest. Why should Turkey, without being a member, indeed when the conditions and prospects of membership have been reduced more and more, make a series of arrangements that would clearly be to its own detriment?

In these aspects the report is truly one that will make our "national" feelings revolt, and in fact, as Beril Dedeoğlu also said, it increasingly contains provocative elements aimed at exhausting Turkey's patience on the road to the EU.

Still, it is not these aspects of the report but the parts concerning journalists that have been taken up more so far.

Of course, when it comes to this part of the matter, it was stated that the part concerning the last two arrested journalists, Nedim Şener and Ahmet Şık, was added to the report at the last moment.

In such a report, "what is the hurry?"

People in Turkey have not yet understood what is going on; does the Dutch rapporteur who prepared the report have some special knowledge on this? It is clear that he too has no more knowledge than being under the influence of the wind blowing in the Turkish media. That wind makes one sick, and he is unaware of it. Some call those winds "conscience," others call them something else, but these winds blow and pass, and the real data remain.

There is an ongoing case, and in this case the prosecutor says that these arrests were made not because of the profession of journalism but because of evidence that cannot be disclosed at this stage. One cannot act as though he did not say this, or as though what he meant by it were known, of course, but naturally, we hope, he will in the end make a statement that truly satisfies the public. We say "we hope" on the one hand, but in fact on behalf of the arrested people we must also hope for the opposite.

On the other hand, the same report also says that the Ergenekon case is a historic opportunity for Turkey in terms of developing democracy and transparent governance, and states that the investigation should be continued in this direction by deepening it. What could be as normal as our being surprised by what an investigation into a structure in which every kind of intrigue is carried out, on the scale and of the character of Ergenekon, will bring before us? Do we assume that we face a structure with a declared charter, accountable and transparent in its activities, relations and style? The investigation process is a difficult process, confusing and full of dilemmas.. A process that is educational in one respect and nerve-racking in another...

Setting aside the debates concerning journalists in Turkey... and setting aside, in these debates, that through the latest arrests journalists have entered into a professional or "friend," "acquaintance" solidarity such as they have never shown in any earlier case... It is thought-provoking that a person who prepares, on behalf of the EP, a report that will guide the EP hurriedly passes all these debates into the report, resolving all the natural uncertainties the subject of debate contains, and passing judgment early on the subject.

Frankly, this judgment, given at the very beginning of the trial process without leaving any margin of caution, should be quite instructive about the nature and character of such reports. Perhaps it teaches us not to take such reports too seriously, or how seriously we should in the end take them.

To see in which markets and what kinds of buyers the EP's worst reports can find in Turkey is also a lesson in itself.