Noting that French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan were alike in many ways, Lellouche said he believed the two leaders understand each other much better than in the past. Lellouche emphasized that military relations between the two countries must be improved and supported Turkey's efforts in the Armenian case. The parliamentarian expressed his dream that Sarkozy and President Abdullah Gül would open the land border between Turkey and Armenia.
During the 17th International Security and Cooperation Conference in Belek last week, sponsored by the Turkish Atlantic Council, Lellouche provided his insights on current events in Turkey, including Ergenekon, Davos and the Armenian case.
President Sarkozy has indicated that the EU presidency has changed him. Is this also valid for Sarkozy's stance on Turkey? Will Sarkozy one day say the people of Cappadocia are a part of the European world?
That is a question you should ask him. I don't think his position has changed on the presidency. There are two important facts about the presidency. First it was a fair presidency vis-à-vis Turkey. He didn't create any problems for Turkey. The process of opening chapters continues, and certainly the French presidency did not raise any particular problems for Turkey.
Except for the word "accession," which came up at the last minute.
Yes, but no one can say that there was anything anti-Turkish during the French presidency. It was a fair and balanced presidency. Also, as you know, the presidency was dominated by the economic crisis and the crisis in Georgia and the situation in the Middle East. Both in the case of Georgia and in the Middle East, he had to work with Prime Minister Erdoğan, and I think they understand each other much better than in the past. In strange ways, they are very similar. They are the same age, they are both very good speakers and strong leaders. On the bottom line, there was no attempt at the part of France to stop or derail Turkey's process, anyway. Yes, he has his personal view on the future of where Turkey will or will not be, but history will show us that. This whole process will take time. Anyway, the main point is that it is up to Turkey to show that it will take in the value system, the legal framework of the European Union. That it is for the Turkish people, not the EU to do. That is why it is going to take time.
But was it necessary for Sarkozy to add an additional five chapters when the commission had decided to suspend eight chapters for Turkey?
He has his own views. I can't tell you that I or anyone has been able to change it. However, his view may evolve given the relationship with Turkey. My own belief is that the end of the process really depends on the ability of the Turkish people to accept the changes. We shouldn't do anything to prevent or hamper that. I don't think France is doing that. In certain sectors of Turkish society, I have many Turkish Francophone friends who are disappointed by the attitude of France. But at the end of the day it is not the French people that will make the changes inside Turkey. When the changes are made, the question of Turkey's entry will not be even a question. If there is doubt, and God knows that in the last few years there were many doubts, such as about the scarf issue, the place of religion, the place of the army, the Constitutional Court, etc. Although Turkey is moving in the direction of Europe, all this shows that the political system in Turkey is not yet stabilized. These are issues that are resolved in the rest of Europe but not in Turkey.
Aren't Sarkozy and other European leaders aware that any negative signal coming from Europe is exploited by anti-European and anti-democratic forces to hamper the reform process in Turkey?
I am aware of that, and that is why I have fought very strongly in my own country to avoid any signal that would be anti-Turkish. For example, you know when there was legislation on the reform of the constitution, which would have singled out Turkey? I fought against it in my party because first I thought it was not dignified of the French constitution to single out one country as a problem case and second I understand the damages it causes inside Turkey.
Will Turkey not be exploited in the coming parliament elections in France?
Of course, some people will try to exploit Turkey, but I will certainly fight any tendency to do that. Some people will argue that this process is out of hand and is hurting French interests by using the economic crisis, the euro, the enlargement process and Turkey as part of the enlargement process. But this is a game of domestic politics. Much of what happened in Davos is domestic politics as well.
Armenian legislation has been dropped
I think 2009 is a very important year for the future of French-Turkish relations. What about the Armenian legislation waiting to be ratified?
The Armenian legislation has been officially dropped. I think it is a good thing that it was dropped because it would have really damaged relationships. It would have made it impossible for example to have any ministerial visits and any economic compacts because some extremists would have used the law to sue any Turkish visitor in France. Fortunately, it was stopped.
Do you think France and Turkey have been competing in terms of their roles in the Middle East?
I don't think it is competition. I think there is room in a situation as complicated as this for different actors to play. There is room also for America to come back into the Middle East peace process. So all this influence is compatible; they are not adversarial or competitive. They are fighting in the same direction. It is very important that the Palestinians and Israelis hear the same message from different quarters. It is important to have countries such as Turkey and France that can speak to both sides. Before Sarkozy, we were so tilted toward the Arab side that we were not heard on the Israeli side. You have to be heard on both sides, and Erdoğan has to be careful not to lean too much toward one side because he will not be heard in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. But, overall, I do not see competition. I see positive and parallel works. In the summer Erdoğan and Sarkozy worked together in Syria and came together in Egypt recently to work on the crisis in Gaza.
There were comments that Sarkozy was in the region just because he was concerned about the prospect of the Akdeniz union project ending?
I wouldn't say that. I think we had to stop this terrible situation in Gaza. But I think the Mediterranean union is a real need. We need to build a working relationship between Europe and the Mediterranean area and the Middle East countries. So far the attempts that were made by the EU, such as the Barcelona Process, did not produce the kind of converging interests -- economic, political, strategic interests -- we need to build. Europe needs to be able to stabilize and look at the way the world is organized. Europe has not been able to create a community in its region the way America and Japan have. Europe needs to build a community of interest with the south Mediterranean, or else we will be flooded with immigration. Africa will triple its population in the next 40 years. If we do not find jobs for these young people, they will come to Europe. We will have a problem of security, poverty and internal conflict. This Mediterranean union is the first serious attempt since decolonization to build a community of interests. Erdoğan understood the importance of this, and that is why he came. This is not a garage for Turkey; it is something that is needed for all of us.
Why is France returning to NATO's military wing? What has changed since the 1960s?
Everything has changed. I just finished a book on this that is going to be published at the end of March. There were there reasons that brought France to move out of NATO in 1966: nuclear weapons, non-integration and political control by the French over its forces. All this changed with the end of the Cold War. Since 1990 we have been dealing with a whole different world. The alliance is essentially denuclearized. NATO has essentially become an expeditionary force. Forces are sent under the decision of sovereign governments. When you raise capacities in NATO for an operation under the UN, you ask the government to provide forces so the decision is already a national decision. All Gaullist principles are shared by everyone; it is a national decision. Certainly during the operation, the rules of engagement under an integrated command are national. For example, the Turkish government does not fight in Afghanistan; they are in a non-fighting role because that is how the Turkish government decided.
So the distinction between what the French said in 1966 and what they do today is gone because essentially NATO has become completely Gaullist. Two French generals were leading in Afghanistan and Kosovo, the two biggest NATO operations. We were the second contributor in forces. Some say France wants to build a European force parallel to NATO, but Sarkozy has decided to go into NATO. This will show that European forces are not trying to undermine NATO forces.
Do you see Turkey as an obstacle for integration of EU security policy and NATO?
Absolutely not. There is the unresolved issue of Cyprus; I understand how difficult the issue is. But I think it is in the interest of Turkey, which is one of the largest military players in Europe, to play a full role both in NATO and in the European Union component. It would be self-defeating for Turkey to be tempted to use a veto to stop this.
Speaking of NATO, do you think the Ergenekon case will be good for Turkish democracy?
Of course. First, I don't see any relation between Ergenekon and NATO because NATO is a collection of democratic countries in which the armies are under political control. In fact when we enlarged to the east, the first thing we did was make a Partnership for Peace. In the Partnership for Peace, we teach new democracies to get the military under the control of political rule. There are extremist groups that can infiltrate into the military, but I am confident the Turkish democracy will continue to strengthen. The fact that this small group was identified shows that there are safeguards in the system. It is an ongoing process of consolidation of the institution. The construction of democracy is never finished because no one is immune from every crisis. During times of crisis, extreme leftists can infiltrate the police and political parties to exploit the crisis.
There are growing concerns, especially after Davos, that Turkey is drifting away from the West and moving closer to the Iran-Syria axis. Do you feel this way?
I do not think so. Turkey is being what it is: a bridge between Europe and the Middle East. It has a very active diplomacy in the Middle East, the Gulf and the Caucasus. I think the Turkish government is playing its cards quite well vis-à-vis the Caucasus and vis-à-vis the Middle East. The nomination of my friend Egemen Bağış as the chief negotiator shows Turkey still wants to be involved in Europe. The Turks defines themselves as a bridge between Europe and the Middle East, and I don't think they are drifting away economically or politically. They are very much European. I think Turkey has a link with the Muslim world, which is very normal and in fact very useful for Europe and also has links with Israel. I think Turkey is playing her cards quite well.
Is it paradoxical to say Turkey is distancing itself from the West when Western values are settling in Turkey?
I understand the worry. There is a constant fight inside Turkey to stabilize the identity of Turkey. It is going to take time. That is why the process with Europe is long and difficult.
I am not shocked that Turkey has ties with the Middle East and Muslim world. This is good for both Turkey and Europe. France also has ties with the Arab and Muslim world. If our neighbors were at war, Europe would also become concerned with them. There is no need to over-dramatize the issue. I am confident Turkey will continue to play its EU cards. The reform process is very important for democratic stability in Turkey, the role of the army and separating state from religion.
Why did Sarkozy appoint a special Turkish envoy?
Because at the time it was very tense.
Is the mission in Turkey completed?
It is not over yet. I think we need to make some progress on the military side because bilateral military relations are close to zero. The problem France has with Turkey is not only Sarkozy. After the war, the French moved away from Turkey; it is a long problem, not just yesterday morning. So we need to reconstruct the relationship. Maybe the crisis with Sarkozy will eventually bring an awakening to the importance of two countries to each other. Of course, the Armenian diaspora did not help. But you have to understand that many of these people suffer from the memories of that time. It is very important that Turkey restart relations with Armenia. My dream is that President Gül and President Sarkozy will open the land border between Armenia and Turkey.
