Question: Helsinki decisions have brought Turkey to the threshold of European integration. This means that the sovereignty issue has been compromised. As a result, Turkey might have difficulties in political arena. We all know these problems. Can I also direct my question to Dr Kaleagasi, although he has not talked yet? This is a general question. I am interested in TUSIAD's point of view on this as well. Turkey is very jealous of its sovereignty. The presence of the National Security Council (NSC) is very critical. Any criticism of it is regarded as an intervention in Turkey's sovereignty. We have seen similar debates in the recent past regarding Ocalan's capture. According to you, how ready is Turkey to change this mentality and understanding of sovereignty? Are there any political reforms or any process towards change in that sense? Although I am interested in the views of all speakers, can I direct this question to his Excellency first?

H.E. Özdem Sanberk: I think this sovereignty question is another critical question not only for Turkey, but also for all the Member States. If we consider the developments in countries like Austria, Belgium, and the like, we can see that this issue has suddenly become a very central to the European debate.

There are areas where Turkey has sacrificed from its sovereignty. When a country allocates some part of her armed forces under the command of an American General, it has already made a sacrifice in its sovereignty. When we became a member of NATO, we did take a very important step as to making the fact that Turkey does not regard national sovereignty as it was regarded in the nineteenth century explicit. There is no such a concept like nineteenth century sovereignty any more. Sovereignty is something to be shared.

I do not think that there will be a difficulty for Turkey to adjust its sovereignty understanding to that of the European Union, because even in the European Union there is an evolution in understanding. This will be mirrored in Turkey as well. This is going to take time, but when Turkey becomes a full member of the European Union it will have to accept the changes in the national sovereignty understanding. It will have to share it with other Member States.

This sharing of national sovereignty is going to be decided again by our Parliament. The Parliament is going to decide to ratify. People will really act upon this.

When the subject of concern is the NSC, I can say that there are military components as well as civilian components in the Council. NSC does not take executive decisions. It takes advisory decisions.

Let me explain how it functions: any decision of the NSC is prepared by the civil servants in collaboration with each other depending on the topic. If it is a foreign affairs decision, it is proposed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the General Secretariat of the Council. It is then debated by the committees and then proposed to the Council. Decisions taken by the Council do not automatically become statutory. It is decided by the government whether or not to make these decisions statutory. What is going to happen to NSC will depend on the evolution of politics in Turkey. It is up to the Turkish National Assembly to decide. Definitely, the constitution of the Council has long been discussed by different parties, and it is accepted that a change is necessary. I think this process is going to take place.

The debate is very lively at the moment. There are twenty nation-wide television stations and all these issues are being debated in Turkey as we talk here. Turkey is open to debate.

Bahadir Kaleagasi: I would like to start by the comments of a Swedish politician on the two consequences of Swedish membership to European Union early October last year. First one is the fact that 70% of the Swedish legislation is now channelled through the European Union. The second one is that Swedish national sovereignty increased in the recent years. As you can see these can become an issue for any country and its people, not only for Turkey.

In Turkey, the perception of the national sovereignty issue is that of the twentieth century. Turkey will be ready to adapt when it is at the full membership stage. An optimistic scenario is that the conditions will be in place at the time of full membership as a result of developments in information technology. Perceptions in Turkey will have changed as a result of this. As Turkey goes through this process of debating on issues related to national sovereignty, the society will be ready to accept the changes. This has happened in a lot of the countries. Turkey is behind the European debate, but it will not stay there for a long time.

NSC is a question of evolution. Turkey is not an anti-democratic country. As an observant, I can tell you that lots of suggestions released by NSC are not adopted by the government. This council is part of the Turkish system, which itself is evolving. NSC will evolve as well. I really do not see this as an obstacle. It is an issue to be addressed. Although it is not one of the easiest ones to be addressed, I do not see a problem there.

Mina Toksöz: Thank you for your comments. These were issues for almost all the member states. However, the conditions in Turkey are a bit more difficult due to Turkey's geographical position in a more volatile region. It becomes a bit more of a difficult process.

Comment and Question by Clement Dodd:I just would like to continue with this problem with the military. When I hear the Copenhagen criteria, they are so simple. The results of applying them are likely to be very disappointing, particularly in Turkey. This is my question really: how well informed is the European Commission when it thinks about democracy in Turkey? Because after all the military in Turkey is not like the military in South America. The military in Turkey has actively intervened on occasions in order, primarily, to keep democracy. It is easy to say that the laws should have done that, and I agree. Recently, the military has helped to avoid the development of a religious sector in Turkish politics. Without the military there you might eventually get to a position where democracy is reduced, although the people in Turkey do not think that this is possible, and neither do I. There plenty of people in Europe who say:Æ everybody should be free, and should be able to act in the way want toÆ. However, these people under-estimate the nature of the treats involved. For that reason, military have intervened. In other words, the conditions in Turkey are very complex and the Commission is very simplistic in what it does, and the judgement it comes to. My question really is: whether they consider these problems in the Commission and realise that Turkey is a difficult place and Turkey needs help in certain ways to overcome these problems, not just by saying that Turkey has to solve these problems and achieve certain standards. Some of those standards are actually inapplicable. They have to be applied in different ways, and my worry is that the Commission is not really tackling the problem sufficiently well, looking at it in depth in trying to understand what can be done. Some of the CommissionÆs views are insufficient.

Comment and Question from Prof William Hale:I would like to carry on from there, because I think the same situation applies to the EUÆs views on CyprusÆ membership. I wonder whether it is remotely likely that the Republican side will be admitted to the European Union and the Turkish side left out? Second is how is the Republican side going to carry out its obligations both in regard to the CommissionÆs criteria and in regard to economic obligations? For example, how can the Republican side fulfil its duties regarding human rights and protection of minorities? Quite simply, how will the Republican side provide conditions for freedom of movement, settlement, and investment? In the hypothetical situation of a European citizen willing to spend his holiday in a hotel in Northern Cyprus, the Republican side will have to refuse this will. It will not be able to carry out its obligations towards European Union. It will not even be allowed to let people in. My question is: how on earth European Union can deal with this?

Sally Axworthy:I would like to deal with the questions in the order they were asked.

The criterion with regards to admission states that candidates should have stable institutions. I just wonder, I am not an expert on these issues, whether Turkey can get to a position where these issues will be set in position by the government or whether the civilian institutions will already be there, which will then make it possible to keep democracy without military intervention.

The second point was about the Commission's simplistic understanding on the problems in Turkey. This is probably true. European member states have had their opinions about what was going on in Turkey. I think we have to accept that we have to take a reasonably objective position on what is going on in Turkey, compare this to the criteria and then make a judgement. Somebody has to do this. You may consider that these methods are insufficient at the moment, but these issues would have to be tackled and we hope to have done a reasonable job at the end of this process.

On Cyprus, they are very good questions, which we ask ourselves from time to time. All I can really say is that our own position has been set a long time ago. We believe that no country can have a veto on Cyprus. That does not mean that it will be easy if there is no settlement by the time Cyprus is ready to be admitted. It is so difficult that we do not want to think about it now. You are right in what you say. It is ought to be helped and the conditions settled before we start talks on Cyprus' membership.

Question: I am wondering whether people in the European Union just criticise Turkey and indicate that Turkey has to undergo all these radical changes or whether they are willing to put the energy into this process of change in Turkey?

Question: In the recent years Europe has been experiencing a rise in the different nations' wish to devaluate (?) from the larger governance bodies they belong to. What is happening in Scotland is an example. How do you evaluate these in relation to Turkey?

H.E. Ambassador Özdem Sanberk: As far as the Scottish are concerned, there is no devolution there. There is no such a request towards devolution. As you know, Turkish Republic is based on the idea of citizenship. This transcends all kinds of ethnic, religious and linguistic differences. What you say in terms of population in Turkey, they are all Turkish citizens with the same rights and same duties. During the last elections in Turkey Turks that of Kurdish origin expressed their political tendency by voting. Only 4% of them showed that Turkish citizens that of Kurdish origin are pro-PKK. PKK does not speak on behalf of the Kurds in Turkey. PKK is a terrorist organisation, and they are not civilian Kurds, but a terrorist group among the Kurds. This is the cause of all confusions stemming from this problem.

As far as the idea of Napoleonic sovereignty idea in Turkey is concerned, I can say this stems from the fact that Turkey was an agrarian society and it took these rules as a basis of its legislation. However, Turkey has changed and become an industrial society.

Sally Axworthy: You mentioned ethnic minorities in Turkey. With regards to Turkey, we have our own definition of ethnic minorities, which may not include the Kurdish people. I think, if you asked whether European Union would be interested in the changes in this respect, the answer is yes. I am sure what the European Union will not do is to announce something like devolution. The European Union will certainly not be involved in that. What it will probably do, although I am not perfectly sure, is to set a view on the regional depression, and the issue of freedom of culture. That will be the primary concern.

Turkey is now one of the candidate countries. It will receive all the attention that other candidates receive. A large part of our time will be spent on understanding what is going on in Turkey, and a large part of the council time will be spent on talking about these issues. It is certainly one of the big political issues on the European Union agenda.

H.E. Ambassador Özdem Sanberk: In Turkey, we do not have a Kurdish community as such. We have Turkish citizens that are of Kurdish origin. We are not a nation divided ethnically. Citizenship means that all Turkish citizens are equal under parliamentary democracy. We have MPs in the parliament who are of Kurdish origin. I think understanding that we are an ethnically divided nation is wrong. Now that Turkey is a candidate, this is an opportunity for Europe to understand these nuances in Turkey.