Archives for July 2007

Pity the poor Piris group, their partners and children.

These are the legal experts from each of the 27 EU countries who are being asked to do a most un-Brussels-ish thing and work through August. They will be fleshing out the new Reform Treaty so that it is ready for perusal by the European Union’s foreign ministers in early September.

Although I was still in Turkey at the time, as far as I can gather the unveiling of the intergovernmental conference earlier in the week was something of a damp squib.

Perhaps this was intentional. Although the Brits are the greatest worry, no-one in the European Union establishment has any interest in anyone trying to re-open arguments or question the smooth ratification of the treaty. Almost uniquely for a major document, it was made available only in French. The cunning blighters had failed to spot one thing: some of the Eurosceptics have been dashed clever and have actually gone and learnt the bally language.

Dishonesty claims

In Britain, those opposed to a new treaty are doing their level best to keep it in the news, bobbing way beneath the surface of all that flood water. They want to garner support for their argument that the government’s case for the treaty is unravelling, and that it is pretty much the same as the old constitution.

The shadow foreign secretary William Hague has repeated his call for a referendum saying the government are out on a limb when they claim this is not the same as the constitution. Labour MEP Richard Corbett attacks this as “intellectually dishonest”.

Open Europe say their research shows that 96 % of the treaty is the same as the constitution with only 10 items out of 250 dropped.

The former Europe Minister Denis MacShane accuses them of mis-translating the French to suggest there will be an EU foreign minister, rather than a high representative.

The Conservatives’ Europe spokesman Mark Francois keeps hammering away, arguing that it is “the constitution under another name”. A government white paper on the process sets out the nature of an “amending treaty”.

Global Vision says this is deeply dishonest as Britain’s relationship with the EU will be “profoundly altered”.

Much of this depends whether you accept the government’s argument, which it can’t state as baldly as it would like. It would go something like this: “We never thought it was a real constitution in the first place but once they called the wretched thing a ‘constitution’ it was hard to resist calls for a referendum. Now we’ve got rid of the word and all the mentions of flags and anthems and other constitutional stuff it doesn’t look like a constitution. So even if it is pretty much the same as the old document there’s no need for a referendum. Now, can we get on with something more interesting?”

Sexier subjects

Funnily enough, it’s the sentence I have just invented that I’m most interested in at the moment.

For I think all the signs are that Britain has its most passionately pro-European foreign secretary since Robin Cook, who intends to win, not duck the argument about Europe. Jack Straw and Margaret Beckett were in terms of New Labour’s boundaries, sceptics.

David Miliband’s first visit was not to Washington or Iraq, but Paris and Berlin. The white paper states quite clearly that the European Union is “crucial” to Britain and “at the heart” of its efforts in the world. Mr Miliband has made it one of his top priorities.

That’s a pretty bland, politico-speak sentence - but think about it.

In his first big foreign policy speech, Mr Miliband mocked the idea that the Foreign Office had 10 “strategic priorities.” So he has whittled them down to just three:

• Tackling extremism and its causes

• Climate change

• Forging a “more effective European Union to help build prosperity and security within European borders and beyond"

Out goes fighting international crime, supporting the UK economy and managing migration - all on the surface sexier subjects than the EU. Which makes me think he really means it.

Neck out

In the same speech he states: “Britain acting alone does not possess the power or legitimacy to directly effect changes on the scale required” in the world. He repeats his call for the EU to become the “Environmental Union” and goes out of the way to argue for the EU to play a bigger role in foreign affairs, “giving better expression to the common commitments of nation states”.

Now, I have heard Jack Straw and Margaret Beckett say similar things in interviews or when put on the spot in the Commons. But Mr Miliband is sticking his neck out, emphasising that this analysis is central to his approach.

Indeed, in his statement on the Alexander Litvinenko case he suggests Russia should amend its constitution to accept the European arrest warrant if it wants freer access to EU markets.

I don’t want to overstate the significance of this, but many senior British politicians who support the EU don’t go out of the way to give it good reviews, and give positive examples of where they think it increases Britain’s clout in the world. They think it just puts another barrier between their argument and their audience.

I think, come the autumn, we are in for a more interesting battle than we thought. But however strongly Mr Miliband believes in his case, I doubt he wants to test it in a referendum.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

Thank you all for your comments. Yes, Dr Okcay, I am learning all the time and I do find Turkey one of the most fascinating and enjoyable places on my beat. Turkish food... well I'll post a holiday blog on food in a couple of weeks and have more to say then. "Yum," will do for now.

This is my third trip, for work, to Turkey and I do hope I understand more, not only with every visit but with every conversation. This blog is part of that. I hope you all get something out of it, but I most certainly do. I have read every single comment and nearly every one helps me understand a point of view.

Although, a general reminder: I can and will answer specific points but not windy abuse. That's why I can't do as Betula Nelson requests - I can't find a single substantial point to respond to.

There have been many posts complaining that I, or the BBC, use "Islamist" or "Islamic" to describe the AKP. I think the "Don't stick labels on us" plea is understandable but we need labels to talk meaningfully about politics and history. And remember my job is to write mainly for an audience in Britain, who may not have a clue what the parties are and what they stand for.

I know some colleagues do use "Islamist" and they regard it as accurate. For myself, I feel "Islamic" simply describes a religion, while "Islamist" means political Islam with a radical agenda, and is usually pejorative in the West. I would describe the AKP as having "Islamist roots", but otherwise wouldn't use the word in connection with them. It's clear others do think they are Islamist, but I think that is part of the argument, open to debate. I have sympathy with the "Muslim Democrat" point made by Ronald Kramer and it may be that over time we end up with something like that if the AKP's behaviour supports this interpretation. I have drawn parallels with Christian Democrats here and in broadcasts. But "Muslim Democrat" does come down on one side of the debate, as the AKP's opponents keep saying the party will get off the democratic tram when it reaches its destination, using an old quote from Erdogan. Many say we should simply drop the religious label. I think this is a polemical point, not objective.

It is not possible for a couple of reasons. Firstly, for the general British audience, one of the interesting things about this story is that a party with religiously devout leaders is governing Turkey. Secondly it's at the centre of the argument in Turkey itself. Read Kerem Erikin, who says the AKP's mentors are the Taleban. Those who support this point of view wouldn't say that the party leaders' religion is unimportant.

Secondly the army... I think I do have a better understanding of the view that the army is a balancing force. But it is valid to question whether it is compatable with democracy.

Lit makes a good point. For journalistic shorthand one has to write "The army thinks" just as I'd write "The Labour Party believes" while knowing that within both institutions there is a range of views and complex relations between differing power structures. Trouble is, with an institution like the Turkish army it's impossible for an outsider to gain much insight.

It's one of the challenges of modern journalism to scrutinise closed organisations with as much care as open, democratic ones, whether they are big corporations, insurgent movements or powerful armies, but it's obviously not easy. Thank you all again.

I hope you like the pictures, which were taken by our cameraman Tom Vantorre.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

For a short while, the sun-loungers lay unencumbered by bodies burning in the 46C heat. But the holiday resorts will be filling up again as people return to the seaside after breaking their holidays to vote in the Turkish elections.

In the cities, the colourful election bunting has already come down. In Ankara, they're sweeping up after the AKP's ecstatic street celebrations, following a victory that surprised even the ruling party's most loyal supporters.

It is almost unheard of for a party of government that has been in power for five years to actually increase its share of the vote. Yet Justice and Development (AK, that is), which claims to be a moderate conservative party with Islamic roots, rather than a religious party, put on about 13%.

Fewer MPs

It could be such a simple story. But it's not. The party has increased its authority, but reduced its power in parliament. A stunning victory then, that leaves it with fewer seats.

They have a huge moral mandate. This is not a hollow victory. Not a pyrrhic victory. But if the earth moved for them, there was no landslide as a result. As Napoleon or Stalin might have said: "How many legions does a moral mandate have?" This odd twist comes about because Turkish electoral law keeps out of parliament any party that does not get at least 10% of the national vote. Last time round, that meant there were just two parties in the parliament. Now there are four main groups and that means fewer MPs for the ruling party.

For those who like their politics free of turmoil and conflict, this is probably a good thing. The cause of the election was parliament's failure to agree a candidate for president. The government needed a two-thirds majority to force through its preferred candidate, whose wife wears a headscarf and so outrages the army and the secularists. It still lacks that majority. Although the prime minister made it clear more than a week ago that he would look for a compromise candidate, had his moral mandate have come with an absolute majority there would have been inevitable calls from within the party to force a showdown with the army. Who would win that contest? Who knows?

Ataturk's heirs

I always think the day after elections is like the day after a battle. The smoke drifts away, the forces are in new positions. But there is no time to relax. The new deployment raises new questions that weren't clear before. There are fresh dilemmas and questions raised for the tacticians and strategists from both winning and losing sides. Here are some of the key questions:

• Is the new parliament a recipe for a new agonised debate about identity? The two new forces are the Nationalist Action party, which some say is quasi-fascist, and the Kurdish independents (standing as an independent is a way round the 10% rule). It's obviously an explosive mix. Although the Kurds won't try to insist on taking the oath in their own language there will be other perhaps unforeseen opportunities for wrangles inside Parliament. More importantly, there is bound to be a big new debate about the place of "mountain Turks" (as Kurds are sometimes referred to) in the Turkish state.

• What alliances will form in the new parliament? Could Justice and Development do a deal with either the Kurds or the Nationalists? If they found a common presidential candidate with the Kurds, that could really have the top brass polishing their tanks. A more likely, and more powerful, deal with the nationalists would be controversial and further undermine the official opposition.

• What happens to the heirs of Ataturk? This is a fifth crushing defeat for the Republican People's party, the CHP. Their over-the-top warnings that Turkey was about to turn into Iran, made their message look ridiculous even to many of those who are very, very worried that the government will turn the clock back and threaten their Western lifestyle. Their reliance on their buddies in the army made them look the old-fashioned ones, a relic from the 1930s, and forced some liberals into voting for the government. They have few ideas or platforms other than "stop the other lot". Without detracting from the winners' victory, they gained votes from the lack of a credible, modern alternative. As I wrote yesterday, there is a gap in the political market. It could be filled by a new party or a revolt within the CHP. But I can't see any "Young Turks" in sight. If they don't reform themselves, the AKP will reach across into the centre ground, and as long as the economy stays strong, become the natural party of government.

And then the two big ones...

• Mildly Islamic or wildly Islamist? Will the ruling party continue to prove, as it has to many Western observers, that it is a moderate party, its success based on economics, rather than religion, with few ambitions to destroy a secular state? Of course, much depends what you mean by "secular". I'm sure it is amazing to many Muslims in Britain that a woman can't go to university in a mainly Muslim country like Turkey if she wears a headscarf. In Britain such a rule would be regarded as the state intruding into the very heart of religious freedom and civil liberty. Of course Britain is not a secular state, with the head of state the head of the official religion, but few would argue that it is not a modern liberal democracy. In Turkey will there be an increase of headscarf wearing? And will the government encourage new dress codes, different laws on public morality or drinking alcohol? So far, I can see very few signs of fundamentalism in Turkey, but it is not impossible some could use Justice and Development in the way Militant tried to use Labour. Most important of all, do the secularists begin to relax or will they feel increasingly beleaguered, aliens in their own country?

• Will it continue to be true that any elected party in Turkey is permanently over the barrel of the army's guns? It was the army's "military memorandum" that began this crisis and one newspaper here says the election is a "Civilian memorandum" in reply. Today the army website has only bland notices about construction tenders and conscription dates. Like a strict father, who has shouted "I will not tolerate such behaviour in my house young man!!!" Now the head of the family sits in the living room studiously ignoring the partying upstairs, hoping they will quieten down. He'd love to take the strap from the wall, like in the old days, but hesitates confronting a group of burly teenagers, knowing any confrontation would not be pretty.

What will they do if the next choice of president is not to their liking? Or when there is another, almost inevitable clash over some other secular/religious issue? Some think the army is still vital, as a lid stopping an overwhelmingly Islamic country adopting overwhelmingly Islamic values. Equally, it could be seen as the lid of a pressure cooker, unnaturally raising temperatures, and encouraging the whole thing to blow. Whether a force for good or ill, the army is perhaps the biggest block to Turkey's EU ambitions: Turkey may be secular, but it is not fully democratic while the army has such a role, and no EU country would think of letting Turkey into the club. How the army reacts in the next year will be vital to Turkey's future.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

Will Turkey give a vote of confidence to the new men from Kayseri, welcome the unlikely pitch-invaders? Or will whoever wins do so by default, for the lack of a third way?

It’s a broiling hot election day in Ankara. The sale and consumption of alcohol is banned during polling day, which may not be such a bad thing as you wouldn’t want your brains scrambled any more than they are by the heat. Constant draughts of water are what you need and I start my day with Duysun Beyhan, one of the men who delivers it. He used to be a taxi driver, but now has his own van and delivers water to the newly-built pink and peach houses on the outskirts of Ankara where he lives with his wife and three daughters.

He says business is going well and that is why he is voting for the government party, the AKP, and not because they have Islamic roots. He says they’ve delivered low interest rates, kept fuel prices stable and helped with access to health care.

But what about the accusation that, while the party may look pretty meek and mild, it’ll end up with a fundamentalist state and sharia law? After voting with his wife, who wears a headscarf, his finger is stained black, a precaution to make sure people don’t vote twice. He tells me: “I think peope are pretty smart and this has nothing to do with imposing Islamic law – it’s not going to happen. People aren't voting for them because of religion but because they are doing a good job.”

Women's rights

More water. Then on to meet Murat Tezcan and some of his friends, whiling their time away playing cards. He’s 25 and has just finished law school, about to embark on another professional qualification. He says the AKP is frightening, because it is undermining the republic’s most basic value, that of secularism. His argument is less black and white than many who are worried about the AKP’s rise, and more persuasive.

He says: “Maybe they're not fundamentalists but even their moderate Islamic model would take Turkish society backwards. It’s deeply conservative and opposed to our Western way of life.”

His friend Aycegul Koruyycu, who works in her dad’s insurance firm, is wavering. She has thought about voting for the AKP because they are dong the right things to get Turkey into the European Union, which she wants, but now she’s not so sure. She’s wearing a baseball cap and shades, and I can’t see her going near a headscarf, so I ask her if she feels her rights as a woman are under threat from an Islamic political party.

"In the last four-and-a-half years they haven't made any legal changes that worry me. But as a woman every day I see more people wearing the headscarf. That bothers me," she says.

"I used to be liberal about it and think they should be allowed to wear it, but the numbers are increasing every day and that's worrying. Of course undermining women’s rights is a big thing... I hope it never happens."

But how much is this a clash about religion, and how much is faith a badge, a symbol, for other social forces?

My BBC colleagues were filming the other day in Kayseri, in Turkey’s heartland. Every morning the great and good of this newly booming town get together for a healthy brisk walk up the hill before prayers. It’s a hard-working, clean-living place, evidently. There’s been an explosion of industry with a big new factory estate and a newly prosperous middle class to go with it. It’s the home town of Abdullah Gul, Turkey’s foreign minister, and in one sense the cause of these elections. Although he was the candidate of the ruling party to become president, the parliament didn’t endorse him, and the army put down its red lines because they see him as too Islamic (the symbol of that being that his wife wears a headscarf).

The mayor of Kayseri also invented the term “Islamic Calvinism” as a direct and deliberate lift from the sociologist Weber, who argued that capitalism was in a sense the product of “the protestant work ethic”. But see the post by Gul Berna Ozcan: I haven’t had a chance to read his articles yet, but certainly will do so.

Snobbish elite

Some Western diplomats argue this is what is at the heart of the bitter clash in these elections. They say the secularists’ objection to the ruling parties’ religious roots is just a mask, a symbol, for a snobbish elite frightened of losing power and money. What Turks wonderfully call “the deep state” means this unchanging ruling class. The army, the judges, the bureaucracy supported by an urban elite. So, the theory of these diplomats goes, what they really dislike is brash new money with vulgar cars and conservative values coming into Istanbul and Ankara from the midlands, as much as their headscarved wives.

I think there’s a good deal to this, although the secularists’ fear and dislike of political Islam is very real and not feigned. But this is a battle of different classes, as well as of religion and ideas. Anyone think of any other countries with an urban and coastal liberal elite that feels under threat from the religious politics of the rural hinterland?

The big difference is that the Pentagon wouldn’t even dream of putting tanks on the White House lawn if George W held a prayer meeting. What my colleagues in Kayseri saw wasn’t such an intervention, more comic opera than civil strife, but perhaps telling. The vast factory complex has a works league, a series of fiercely contested football matches. In the match my colleagues were observing, in the last minute a penalty was awarded by the ref: it was a dubious call, to say the least. But the team that probably committed the foul in the first place went one up just before, as I believe they say, the final whistle. Players surrounded the ref and started arguing. About eight soldiers with rifles slung over their shoulders took to the pitch.

They didn’t actually do anything. But they were there. The ultimate authority. It’s unlikely, but possible that if someone cries foul after this election, there’ll be a pitch invasion. The phrase that keeps coming up in my mind when I write about the Turkish army is Gerry Adams’ chilling warning about the IRA (some years ago): “They haven’t gone away, you know.”

Alienated youth

Thanks once again for all your comments (and earlier here, too), nearly all of them really enlightening. A couple more insightful posts from Ronald Kramer. But Ali and Deniz (in his first paragraph) raise an interesting point which echoes what a lot of people are telling me. As so often in elections all over the world they would like to vote for “none of the above”. But this is a specific, not general weariness. A few have joined the ruling party and rightly point to this interesting article in the New York Times.

The Western diplomats I was talking to think this is the next stage: the AK party will continue to reach across to the centre and build upon its strength. But there are some parts I can’t see them reaching. Many of the youngish urban middle class, pro-Western sons and daughters of loyal supporters of the republicans, could never bring themselves to vote for a conservative, religious party. But they can’t stomach the republicans. They despise its leadership as bereft of ideas and find its links with the army old-fashioned and worrying. They want a modern social democratic party, but there isn’t one. There is a gap in the market. Will it be filled by the time of the next elections?

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

Rojin bounced up and down on the stage, wiggled her hips, grabbed the mike and let rip with her powerful voice, her long dark hair flying...

It’s the hair, you understand, that interested me, because in front of the Kurdish singer was her large and enthusiastic audience, and in the very front rows, yes, looking up adoringly, swaying with the music, arms outstretched, was a sea of women wearing tight white headscarves with a sort lacy fringe.

This is a Kurdish rally, so maybe things are different, but while the headscarf issue divides the men of power, the women who are wearing the things don’t seem that fussed by people who don’t.

Not a democracy

But I am now back in Istanbul after a late flight.

An early morning drive across the Bosphorous to talk to a couple of retired senior military men, three-star generals. Many here believe it is the army that really calls the shots, without needing to fire any. Incidentally, when you say “retired military” in Turkey you are not talking about old buffers living out the last campaign from an armchair in the Turkish equivalent of a bungalow in Bournemouth, but vigorous men at the height of their powers, extremely intellectual and thoughtful, in the most senior positions in private enterprise after a distinguished career.

I’m not going to name them, not that I think they would mind, but because this was the result of a chat after an interview and I didn’t take notes, so what follows is a summary, not exact quotation.

They argued Turkey was not a democracy, despite the fact it goes to the polls on Sunday in what appear to be free and fair elections, with multiple political parties and a free-ish and vociferous press. Their arguments strike me as rather Leninist. The masses are uneducated and illiterate so can be deceived by unscrupulous politicians. Only when they are better educated will Turkey be a real democracy. It is the army’s job to intervene if there is any deviation on the path to this true democracy.

They make a similar argument about "ethnic issues"... which means the Kurds. Poverty and bad education is the problem. The solution may need a tough military component but it's really about developing the south-east of Turkey until people stop worrying about issues of identity.

I put it to them that the AK party, which I’ve described to the ire of some as mildly Islamic, doesn’t seem very threatening. They have no hesitation in labelling the party's leaders as “extremists” who want to turn the clock back and make the whole of Turkey subscribe to the values of the uneducated rural areas. They argue, and this is a very common point of view, that political Islam has to end up with Sharia law. It's in the Koran. To believe anything else is not to be a Muslim. Although they do add that one can be devout and a secularist as long as faith is kept separate from politics.

More tanks?

That seems to me either a contradiction or a suggestion that Islam is not static and can take different guises. Why is it not possible for their to be another position, half way between Sharia law and the privately devout secularist? I add that it's possible for me to argue from the Bible that it is impossible for any Christian to kill or go to war, but we all know that is not actually the case. They say the difference is that Christianity does not contain a body of rules, of laws that are practical rather than moral, and that is the big difference.

I end up asking if we could ever see tanks on the streets of Turkey, imposing the army’s will. "No," says one of them, quickly and firmly, before adding that of course it's always a possibility if secularism is under threat, and it can’t be ruled out.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

The view is fantastic. What a place to take an early evening glass of tea. The sprawling tea room is set on a natural balcony overlooking the fawn peaks of the Cudi mountains (pronounced like "Judy") spreading into the distance, touched by a golden evening light. We're in the Kurdish town of Sirnak, which has been made gay by a profusion of election bunting spread across the main crossroads.

The men in the open-air tea room seem to be grouped strictly, by age and dress. At one table men in their forties, wearing white shirts and dark suit-trousers. They all have small neat moustaches. At another, older men, wizened and mostly bearded, wear looser-fitting clothes. We are invited to sit down and take a glass of tea with a group of men in their sixties. They wear crisp, careful, ironed white shirts, dark waistcoats and large elongated flat caps. They have big, bushy moustaches. I never get round to asking what they do, but they have an air of mild prosperity, small businessmen or shopkeepers.

It's all very relaxing, the click of worry beads in their large hands, the scent of Turkish tobacco, aromatic rather than choking in the open air, a low murmur of conversation in Kurdish. The men are nearly all smoking roll-ups of pale local tobacco through Noel Coward style black cigarette holders. Many of them keep their tobacco in large silver cases - one, I notice, has a rather incongruous marijuana-leaf embossed on the front. There is rather a lot I want to understand but this is a gentle, translated conversation, not an interview with a politician, so I am happy to go with the flow rather than relentlessly herd the talk in one direction. I do expect to hear a fair amount on the Kurdish question, but instead we end up talking about the central issue in the elections: religion and politics.

First I do ask about the troop build-up. One man says there has been a lot of activity, another says not more than normal. They seem to agree that there will be no invasion unless there is a big terrorist attack. If that happens, then probably something will be done. I sip the tea. The men tell me they call it "smugglers tea"… it's from Syria. All the sweeter, I say.

One man seems to be a spokesman for the group despite not wearing the team uniform. No cap or moustache and he's wearing a light-weight suit jacket, so perhaps he's something of a free-thinker, or perhaps it's the modern day dress of a Kemalist. He is attacking the ruling party, the AK, which I've described below as mildly Islamic. "They are deceiving people. It is wrong to use religion like that. The nation should come first in politics. Religion is between each man and Allah."

The statue of Ataturk at our backs should be beaming at such sentiments. But the founder of modern Turkey, clutching a book of his speeches, is as stern as ever. His revolution in the 1920s and 30s was quite astonishing. He transformed the tattered remains of the Ottoman empire into a modern nation state and then dragged it, with remarkably little screaming, into the West's version of the 20th Century. He outlawed traditional dress, banned the Arabic script, introduced universal education and a legal system based on the Swiss code, praised the emancipation of women, and shoved religion right out of politics. Here he is revered by many as a secular saint.

Although no-one would dare to do so here, there is much one could mock about Ataturk. Except he was so extraordinarily successful. He balanced on the high wire of history and everything tells you he should have fallen off, that his revolution should have ended in failure and the triumph of conservatism. But it didn't. He stayed on the wire, won, and it worked.

Indeed secularism, the doctrine that religion has no place in politics, has become in itself almost untouchable, holy writ. That is why it filled some with such horror that their country might elect a president whose wife wears a headscarf.

It is his legacy that some fear the AK, a religious party, is trying to unravel, as several comments to an earlier post point out. Thanks for so many interesting remarks. Ayse Sarici, I think that is the first time someone has made a nice comment on the way I look for about 20 years. And you are right that the proximate cause of the election was parliament not agreeing on a presidential candidate - but I think the e-coup coloured and pre-ordained that failure. Fascinating analysis from Ronald Kramer.

Some questions for Mehmet Kara and Cagatay Ertan: what do you mean by secularism under threat? When people talk about the rise of political Islam do we in Western Europe mean the same as you in Turkey? Cagatay points out that the president blocked some "fundamentalist interventions". True the AK wanted to allow state money to go to Koranic schools. They wanted women to be able to wear the headscarf in universities and libraries. But in Britain such things would be seen as fairly normal and legitimate expressions of religion: church schools (and Islamic and Jewish ones) are indeed funded by the state in Britain. France is a determinedly secular state, but would Mrs Sarkozy be banned from the Elysee Palace if she wore a Christian cross around her neck? So are you really worried about an increase in religious sentiment, rather than the rise of fundamentalism, or political Islam? Both are legitimate concerns to secularists but they are not the same thing. Or are you saying that there is no difference?

Is there real fundamentalism in Turkey?

I'm writing now in the city of Cizre. There are many women wearing the full chador-type veil, with a white piece of cloth across the mouth. People who've been here before tell me this would have been unthinkable five years ago. So something is changing: but how political is it? Every time I try to pin down an example of "fundamentalism" in Turkey it vanishes, leaving nothing but the headscarf issue behind. Councils that ban alcohol? I've heard the story, but you tell me where, I can't find it. But will Turkey one day go the way of Iran, or Afghanistan under the Taliban? My waters tell me it's unlikely, but maybe I would have had a gut instinct in Kabul in the 1950s or Tehran in the 60s that would have been wrong. And Gul Berna Ozan: is there such a thing as Christian Capitalism or Islamic Capitalism? Some say that the AK party is all about a new mixture, Islamic Calvanism, which is explored in this fascinating article.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

For the moment it's Turkish tankers not Turkish tanks that are lining up at the border with Iraq.

A long line of oil and petrol tankers snakes along the Silk Road, through parched fields, towards the mountains and the border crossing at Habur. The drivers are incredibly patient, sitting on little stools outside their vast vehicles in the burning heat and waiting for the boys to come along on rickety tricycles to sell them cold drinks or a glass from the trays of tea. "We are already starving," grumbles one man. "If they invade we will die."

Hang on. Invade Iraq? Hasn't someone already thought of that?

But this is a Turkish threat, and an American fear. The Iraqi foreign minister claims that 140,000 Turkish troops are massing on the border. Many Turkish generals think the government should go in, and so do senior politicians in the main opposition party. The logic is easy. This is Turkey's Kurdish region, where a civil war, a struggle against terrorism, a fight for freedom... you choose the label you wish, but whatever you call it, it's been going on for more than 20 years. Two Turkish soldiers were killed just days ago, by Kurdish fighters.

Plain weird

But the invasion of Iraq changed everything. Almost certainly the most stable part of that country is the Kurdish region right across the border from Turkey. It is not, of course, independent, but has the sort of autonomy many Turkish Kurds can only dream about. Many see the Kurds as the Americans' most important and most loyal allies within Iraq. The Turkish military says the Kurdish guerrillas - the PKK, who have long holed up in the mountains - now operate with impunity from within Iraq itself. The Turkish military see the existence of Kurdistan in Iraq as both an immediate strategic threat and a political one.

The scenery here is entrancing, dramatic and just plain weird. A vast panorama of fawn mountains gives way to a wide river delta. Black shale forms large hillocks like scrunched up velvet. The evening sun light fills the landscape with a golden glow. Geological formations like so many giant axe heads stick out sheer from the rock face. Every few miles there might be a sign of life. A low concrete building with a roof of dried branches, complete with leaves. A little girl pushing a wheel barrow across the road. A checkpoint. The young gendarmes are polite but look hard and don't smile. Reminders that this is a zone of conflict are everywhere.

In the magical landscape, one building stands out: a pagoda atop a hill. Not Shangri La, but the home of the Turkish special forces. But it's just one of many signs of the military presence. Eight-floor barracks houses with their own mosque attached perch on hill tops, behind barbed wire. Tanks poke their guns out from canvas awnings overlooking the Tigris. Civilian minibuses carry soldiers in and out of the area, a miniature armoured car leading the convoy. In fairness, and with the wisdom of driving around for a day, it's a lot less in your face than the British presence used to be in Northern Ireland.

Election issue

But 140,000 troops? It's safe to say that last month did see a fairly large influx of men and machinery but they are now in the military zone where we are not allowed to go.

One local who knows the area well thinks perhaps there are now 60,000 men massed here. But guessing at numbers is fairly pointless. What is certainly the case is that this has been ramped up as an election issue. A stick to beat the ruling AK party with, as too scared to stand up for Turkish interests, too craven to defy the Americans, unwilling to pursue and destroy the terrorists.

I'm not exactly a military expert, but the idea of a land invasion seems fanciful. Surely a few special forces, or air strikes or artillery barrages would do the job better, if there is a job to be done? But talk of invasion does worry the Americans. Not just because it would destabilise the one region of Iraq that could be called almost stable, but because their latest "surge" in Baghdad relies on Kurdish fighters. If these felt their homeland was threatened they might go home, forgetting to drop their American weapons on the way, and leave the surge, well... distinctly un-surgey.

Frightened Americans may be just what the Turks want. Of course, given the fairly fevered election campaign I'm not suggesting any collusion between the government, opposition and the army but it might suit all their interests if the Americans were to be forced to watch more carefully what the Turkish Kurds are getting up to in Iraq. But no amount of slaughter will change the fact that a nearly independent Kurdistan on Turkey's border is a challenge to all involved.

You've made many interesting comments on what I see as the main election issue... I will reply later with some more thoughts of my own.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

SOUTH-EASTERN TURKEY: Airline etiquette shifts as you move towards the rural east in Europe, and the tendency carries on in the south-east of Turkey. As we land in Diyarbakir a ripple of applause moves through the plane. True, it had been a bit of a bumpy landing, but what's all this about? You can't imagine people in France and Germany doing it. It's true Israelis do, but I always thought that was patriotic relief at arriving in the homeland. I've heard British package tourists do it too, and I'm not sure why.

The other constant, that goes with applause, is that people are desperate to get up and be off, jostling each other to get their bags and stand up even though there will be a 20-minute wait before the doors open. True to form, women in colourful traditional dress jumped up and hauled their luggage out of the overhead lockers.

The pilot made the traditional "Please don't unfasten your seat belts until the plane has stopped moving" plea, but perhaps the applause hadn't been long or loud enough. He slammed on the brakes. I've never seen it done before. The women crashed into each other and landed heavily back in their seats uttering what I supposed were colourful and traditional oaths.

The Silk Road running past the Turkish-Syrian border is not named for its smoothness. For mile after mile we drive through the tawny brown hills, on one side of the road runs a tall barbed wire fence and watch towers. Beyond that, charred blackened land, peppered with mines I'm told.

The driver swerves from side to side, to avoid the many potholes. Suddenly we come upon a section of road with brightly and freshly painted white lines, guarded by plastic cones. "We don't have roads, but we've got the lines," observes the driver wryly.

We're heading for the border with Iraq, where that country's foreign minister claims the Turks have massed 140,000 troops. This is deep in Kurdish territory but the only sign of the army we've seen so far is one checkpoint, with a fearsome armoured car and a rather scrawny looking young recruit.

The landscape is not unlike some parts of Spain, arid and undulating, but it is still weird to think that this one day maybe the boundary of the European Union, literally bordering Iraq and Syria.

That is I suppose the point of those who say most of Turkey is not Europe. But I tell you there is an even more distinct lack of the North Atlantic. Not a drop of sea in sight, and none of the land is anywhere near that body of water. But I don't remember many protests when Turkey joined the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

ISTANBUL: It's one of those travel days. So was the day before. Yesterday morning saw me dismantling a tent in a field in Dorset, now I'm waiting in Istanbul airport for a flight to the Iraq-Turkey border.

There's still something thrilling about exotic names like Gaziantep, Erzurum, Trebizond (Son Gagri seems very popular... oh, no, that means "final call") coming up on the destination board. Well, more thrilling than hearing that emergency engineering meant all South West services would be going through Basingstoke, anyway.

I'm here to cover the weekend's elections.

They are perhaps the first popular vote prompted by the world's first e-coup, when the army hinted on its internet site that it would intervene if the government pressed ahead with putting one of its own people up for the presidency. It is an interesting test for the governing party.

There are are many ways of describing this party... "Mildly Islamic", "has its roots in an Islamic party outlawed five years ago", or "Islamic in the same way that Germany's Christian Democrats are Christian" might do. Of course, the party's opponents say it has a hidden fundamentalist agenda, but it is pretty well hidden. As one EU diplomat put it to me dryly: "Putting the entire body of EU law into Turkish law is hardly the best way of establishing a Sharia state." So some in the West see it as a model: Islamic, pro-Western, democratic.

But Turkish nationalists and the military believe that secularism is under attack. The reason for the army's anger and anguish is that the foreign minister, whose wife wears a headscarf, was nominated as president. The government has retaliated by suggesting the president should be directly elected, which would hand its candidate victory. Lots of other issues of course, but this is perhaps a test between the will of the people and the webolutionaries.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

I have a single European hangover. It should have been subject to co-decision, but nobody stopped me. I'd been covering a meeting of young federalists in the Slovenian capital, Ljubljana. They're a jolly bunch and have this game, you see, where you have to taste the drinks and nibbles of various European nations and guess their origin. Surprisingly, the porridge with yoghurt and cheese (Romania) didn't get as much attention as the overcrowded drinks table.

Your intrepid reporter can exclusively reveal that Romanian wine, followed by Moldovan brandy, Slovenian blueberry schnapps, French Calvados and Scottish single malt certainly makes an evening slip by in a painless fashion. But is the attempt to mix 27 countries together enough to give even federalists a thumping headache?

Tomorrow's leaders

Many in Britain who are hostile to the European Union dislike it precisely because they are worried about the federalist dream, the attempt to create a United States of Europe. Some still want this. Last year, the outgoing Belgian Prime Minister published a book called The United States of Europe.

But many others, including enthusiastic supporters of the European Union, say the dream is dead. It is obvious, they say, that it could have happened with the six, would have been harder with 15, but is well-nigh impossible with 27. The "No" referendums on the constitution in France and the Netherlands - both founder members - were, according to this argument, the final nail. But attempts at "ever closer union" continue, so what is the federalist dream today, and more importantly, tomorrow?

The Young European Federalists, known as JEF after their French acronym (I imagine an earnest young man in a tweed jacket with a wispy beard) are partly funded by the European Commission and it's they who have organised the summer school in Slovenia. The students here have won their places against fierce competition, writing essays on the future of Europe, and they are seriously bright and knowledgeable. Among them, I'm sure, are a few future prime ministers or commissioners, who will shape the Europe of tomorrow. What they think matters.

I joined them first of all for their search for European vibes in the city centre. In front of the Church of the Annunciation, a pretty confection in pink, they are snapping away at everything that moves, trying to capture images redolent of the spirit of Europe. A couple holding hands. Snap. Raindrop on a leaf. Snap. An American busker playing Wonderwall rather well, tossed a coin by a tubby lady all in black, apart from an embroidered headscarf. ("Man! I've been given money by a gypsy!" the busker exclaims.) Snap.

The boys seemed especially keen on capturing pictures of the blonde Latvian delegate, Anete Skrastina, for posterity. She tells me what sights have captured Europe for her: "Daddy carrying his kid on his shoulders. The thoughtful face of an old lady." It's a bit wishy-washy for me. Surely people smile in America and Asia too? Eugen Soineanu from Romania answers: "It's about what links people. You can see love in a Romanian's eyes and a Belgian's eyes… Yes, you can see it in an American's eyes, but Europeans are more docile and calm and romantic. Think about High Romanticism: we were the ones who invited romanticism and now we are picking the fruits of it 200 years later."

They talk about the euro and travel as things that have brought them closer together. But what about a country called Europe? Do they want that?

Utopia

"The concept of a fixed country is old anyway. We do not need a huge country but a big family, a network that can help each other," says Eugen.

"When you are here you feel the diversity of the cultures but when you go to Asia or America you feel, 'Hey I am a European!'" adds Anete.

Later, the students are busy preparing their national dishes, or fetching the bottles from their rooms, and downloading pictures on to their laptops.

Before the party begins I talk to Iza Trsar in the university gardens. We're lucky, it's a balmy evening between two days of downpours. She feels the politicians have abandoned Europe's political dimension and wrongly concentrated on economics. For her, federalism is an ideal, something to stretch towards, rather than an immediate short-term goal.

"I don't think we will ever be able to feel primarily European, and then Polish, Slovenian, British, whatever. It will always be the other way round," she says.

"But I would certainly like a stronger form of confederation. At the moment federalism is utopia, what I wish for is for is for people to be more mobile, less strict immigration. We should have common foreign and defence policies."

She's 20, so I ask what Europe will be like when she's an old lady? "I would like Europe to be a federalist state but I'll die before that happens," she laughs. "I want more and more and more common things. And really happening, not just written down in treaties."

Before the uncorking of the local liquid delicacies, each student gives a brief presentation about their country. Nearly all of them claim to be at the heart of Europe and to have the most beautiful women. The French are introduced by their Slovenian host as liking stinky cheese. The two women play the game, branding themselves as arrogant eaters of frogs' legs. A beret perched jauntily atop her pigtails, Violaine Faubert proclaims they invented the French kiss. But they also invented the more controversial embrace of European federalism. What does Violaine make of the dreams of French statesmen like Monnet and Schuman?

"A federation of nation states is an ideal because it resolves war, but maybe we should concentrate on practical things. A nation called Europe...? That's impossible. But we need a more democratic Europe."

'Nightmare'

The man who brought the malt whisky along is not in favour of European blending. Alistair Maciver tells me he joined the Conservative Party because of European federalists.

"I joined the Tory party after going to a European Youth Parliament event in Britain. I was going along quite cheerily humming the Ode to Joy and left with my head in my hands, thinking 'This is a nightmare!'" he says.

"A lot of young people think we are engaged in a process and we have to bring that process to fruition. It's quite dangerous thinking, it's like Marxism: 'I foresee this day when the working classes rise up… I foresee this day when we are going to be in an ever closer union.' I don't think that's very rational."

He adds that, as a lawyer, federalism has its attractions. "I study law, and federalism legalistically secures the sovereignty of each state, it would define the powers of each member state," he says. "But it's not something I would ever be in favour of. Britain would derive its right to exist from a European document."

Whatever you think of his political argument, his perception about those who call themselves federalists is essentially correct: it's an emotional goal, rather than a political blueprint. Most concede it is further away now than it was 10, 20 years ago. They realise that for now it is a dream. Perhaps the Maltese delegate, in his jokey presentation, makes an important point. Noting that most people have said their country is at the heart of Europe he says his is at the centre of the world. It's in the middle of the Med, and "Mediterranean" means middle of the earth.

Indeed he goes on to claim he used to live in a village at the centre of Malta, and his house was at the centre of the village and his bedroom in the centre of the house. So he was the centre of the world.

While many EU countries' governments claim to abhor such a self-centred view, when push comes to shove few are willing to surrender either that position or that perception for a hazy vision.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

It’s fascinating to see how some stories are translated in the oddest places. Take this headline: “Brussels wants to tax our nappies”. It is perfectly true. Under European Commission proposals to harmonise VAT, children’s clothing would lose its exemption.

But Britain has a veto and the government has promised to use it. In fact, it was one of the Conservatives’ complaints that “not losing the veto over taxation” was a spurious red line for Tony Blair at the latest EU summit, because there was no such proposal on the table. The government had the good grace to privately admit it was a bit of a con and “purely presentational”. If Britain did lose the veto on VAT changes, or did not exercise it, it would indeed be a huge story and would cost parents a lot of money. The Sun reports it fairly and accurately.

But the above headline comes not from a tabloid with a political agenda but UK Parents Lounge, which as far as I can discover is about advice to parents, and doesn’t declare any political agenda.

The article goes on: “The UK government has always resisted attempts by Brussels to call the shots over UK taxation, but thanks to Tony Blair's European ambitions, we could be left without a choice.” Which suggests he gave up the veto, which he didn’t.

It continues, “Gordon Brown, just like Tony Blair before him, has not mentioned the EU Treaty to the British public because the Govt has always steered clear of an open debate with the British people.” I don’t know what constitutes “mentioned” but Blair’s Commons statement and Brown’s interviews would seem to count to me.
I would never quibble if this was written by a pressure group or party, or indeed a campaigning newspaper. But it seems a little opinionated coming out of the blue.

Anyway, I’m keeping my judgements to myself while I am on holiday for a week. Although I hope to catch up with slugger for a pint to discuss the finer points of blogging under canvas. But there will be a regular post on Thursday.

I’ve also responded, rather late, to a couple of points in your thoughts about... the Treaty of Lisbon. You can read my reply here.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

Poland is seen as a problem. Many European leaders find it hard to swallow the Polish spirit: too harsh, too challenging, enough indeed to make them splutter and choke.

Perhaps they have forgotten too much.

The European Union is a unique blend of compromises - savage history mellowed with age - while many Poles still feel fiery about the past. To put it more crudely, they suffered more than most in World War II but when others gathered round the table to make sure it would never happen again, they were unavoidably delayed. They missed the bit where the goodies got handed out and "sorry" was said with real sorrow.

As Portugal takes on the EU presidency, its prime minister, Jose Socrates, has said he doesn't want to cast Poland as the bad guy in the European movie. But the most commonly held view among European Union diplomats is that Poland, or at least the current Polish government, isn't playing the game, is stubborn and intractable. Those who hold this view often feel that they were rather generous in allowing Poland and the other seven eastern former-communist states to join their club - and now the biggest of them wants to change the rules.

Recently a senior diplomat of one of the smaller countries told me he wished he could return to the EU of 15 states. He said something like: "We had a common history, a common attitude towards Europe, which made things simpler. Now the new countries don't share that attitude." He said it would be better if some of them would leave. I normally favour short sharp questions to politicians, but this was a conversation over dinner rather than an interview, so I rambled on a bit. I pointed out that France, Germany and Britain had very different, if often shared, histories and very different attitudes towards Europe. On the other hand, despite their different historical experiences, Estonia or the Czech Republic seemed quite similar to the Danes or Swedes in their approach to Europe. So when he said "the new countries" was that just code for Poland? "Yes," he replied with undiplomatic alacrity.

Jabbing at a taboo

The twins who run Poland are disliked even more because of the outcome of the June summit. Despite all the warnings that they didn't know how to play the game, that they had to forge alliances rather than be so pig-headed, they remained intransigent. And won. They got the voting system they want kept for at least another seven years, against the opposition of 26 other countries. Now they are claiming that an oral agreement was made to give even more concessions and want the deal unpicked. The rest of the EU is unamused.

I am tempted to write that they have done a Thatcher, waving their handbags. But perhaps that would be unwise as the twins' ultra-conservative government recently thought about banning the Teletubbies from Polish TV screens, because the apparently male Tinky Winky carries a handbag and so threatens to corrupt the morals of Poland's toddlers. But at any rate, they waved something appropriately butch and the other countries, desperate for a deal, let them have what they wanted.

But the real offence was not caused by this victory but the remarks that preceded it. The affront was the Polish claim that they deserved a different voting system, because they would have a much larger population today if the Germans hadn't killed so many of them in World War II. When I said they had broken one of the unwritten rules of the EU, "Don't mention the war!" I intended to raise a laugh, but I wasn't joking. The Fawlty Towers sketch is excruciatingly funny because Basil is so focused on not saying what is at the front of his mind, that he keeps saying it. His intention is not to talk about the one subject that, to him, defines his German guests. But the Poles are deliberately jabbing at a taboo, trying to cause offence.

Faultlines

Many Germans do find the British harping on about Spitfires and goosesteps rather childish and annoying, but the more thoughtful ones understand why we do it. For the British, our country's defiant and determined stand in World War II is still a source of national pride, and to tell the story properly you have to have an enemy. Of course, British people died, families suffered terribly, but there was an end and a purpose. They were heroes, not victims. It's very different in the rest of Europe.

For most other countries, World War II was a source of shame. The shame of defeat, or the shame of conquest. The shame of collaboration, the shame of turning a blind eye. Of course, there was heroism and pride too. But the war hurt too much, in too many ways. It had to be put firmly in the past, not constantly picked over. The forerunner of the European Union was designed quite specifically to build bridges, to soothe the pain, and crucially to make sure it never happened again. There are those who will argue the EU's role as the peacemaker in Europe is much overplayed and that, for instance, Nato was far more important. But I am not trying to settle modern and legitimate political debates but describe how people feel, how they see their own history.

Often the European Union's role in burying the divisions of the past is talked about in rather wishy-washy terms. But it was built on a number of practical measures. The supra-nationalisation of German steel and coal. The aggressors, Germany and Italy, coming together with the victims, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg, under the umbrella of an organisation built on German money and French bureaucracy, German submission and Francophone domination.

And look at where the institutions are placed. I curse every time I have to go to the place where the European Parliament meets once a month, or where the Council of Ministers gets together for three months a year, at huge cost. But I understand why I am making the trip. Brussels. Luxembourg. Strasbourg. The institutions are built mainly along the Franco-German faultlines, the borders that were violated by war. In the EU, you don't mention the war because the settlement has been made, the grievances can be forgotten.

Long-lost brother

But Poland only joined three years ago. It has been out of the Communist deep freeze for a while now, but history takes a while to thaw. Germany has made a bit of a fuss about the recent mocked-up picture in a Polish magazine of Mrs Merkel displaying her chest, but I bet it was the one of her with a Hitler moustache last year that really rankled.

The Poles have got money and markets out of the EU. But they haven't got an apology. Some Germans feel that without their friendship and aid Poland wouldn't have been allowed in the club so soon. Maybe. But a long-lost brother has returned to the family home, still simmering about a past upset, when the rest of the family has made up and forgotten long ago.

There is no Council of Ministers meeting in Warsaw during June and July. Parliament doesn't go to Krakow once a month. Poland was at the centre of the war, but not at the centre of the peace. Some in the European Commission think there has to be a Kohl-Mitterrand moment, when the two men held hands by a World War I memorial, a statement that needed no words... I am not sure I will ever see the picture of Merkel, one arm round each twin, solemn in Silesia, but perhaps such a gesture is what it would take to make the Polish problem fade to black.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

Was the summit a secret stitch-up?

The Media Standards Trust has asked me to add to their website on this. The BBC has a problem with journalists writing for outside publications, and while I don't know if this applies to outside blogs, I do know it will take about 10 months to get an answer. So here's a compromise. I'll write about it here and they can link to it if they want. "Is an opaque and unaccountable EU preventing the Fourth Estate from doing its job?" they ask, suggesting only the British government line is available.

The short answer is that the EU is about as transparent as governments and the European Commission want it to be. It's probably a little bit more transparent than the UK government. But if the politicians want to keep something secret, they will. And I'm pretty sure this time they made two big decisions they told us nothing about.

I don't really understand the suggestion by the MST that only the British government's view is reflected. For a start "The British Government" isn't a single voice. Or it wasn't at the summit. My colleague James Landale got quite a different account of Gordon Brown's interest in the proceedings than we were getting from Downing Street. Then there is the opposition and pressure groups and business organisations, all of which have their own contacts, who may know what is going on. There are 26 other countries, all of which have "permanent representations" (embassies and ambassadors by another name) and they all have spokespeople, who are usually quite happy to speak to us. The commission has numerous spokespeople as well - the commission president has a spokesperson's service, and so do all the different departments. And there are other journalists, from other countries.

So, in a sense, the problem is not that there is just one source, but that there are too many to contact on one given day. When I'm engaged in the time-consuming business of making TV packages, I have to strip the phone calls down to the most essential ones. I rely a great deal on the teamwork and helpfulness of my colleagues on such occasions. The MST quote Stephen Mulvey as saying that information was scarce, but he kept coming back to the office with juicy titbits and wrote about most of them. There are periods of the night when the doors are locked and no-one really gets a hint. But that's not the overall picture.

Would I like the meetings to be open? Well, of course. I would love to be under the table with a microphone. But it's not realistic to expect politicians to carry on sensitive negotiations in public. I have a lot of sympathy with the MPs who demanded Tony Blair should set out his position in the Commons before he went to the summit. But I also have a lot of sympathy for a poker player who's asked to make a public speech about his hand and who he thinks is bluffing. In fact, many EU meetings of ministers are in public, and can be very interesting. But they don't often get reported. As John Major said, if you really want to keep something secret, say it in Parliament.

But what about the two secret deals? On the day of Gordon Brown's reshuffle it emerged that Baroness Amos had been made, as the headline on the Downing Street website put it, the "UK's envoy to Africa." On reading the story, this is expanded to, "The UK's nomination to the new job of EU envoy to the African Union, based in Brussels and Addis Ababa". I don't remember any mention of this new post in Brussels, though it may have been announced months back. But it was never announced that Baroness Amos had got the job. And you can take that "UK nomination" with a pinch of salt. They would never say it in public unless it was in the bag. So where was the decision taken? The foreign ministers' meeting the previous Monday? At the summit? I just don't know.

That is not the end of it. Tony Blair's new job is representing the US, Russia, UN and EU. I understand the deal was worked out at the G8. The big EU countries, UK, France and Germany were there. But not the other 24 states.

I understand Mr Blair was lobbying other prime ministers at the European summit, so I guess the deal was done there. But I am only guessing. Was there a vote? Or a discussion? I haven't got a clue. But there surely must have been a formal decision some time, somewhere?

What else have they decided and will tell us later? Or not tell us at all?

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

Lisbon in late October. A summit by the sea, rather than by the dual carriageway. Balancing a plate on my knee in the Portuguese Prime Minister's garden it seems a very attractive notion. The PM's backyard is a good place to be. The sky is blue, the sun is shining, the green lawns are shaded by palms, and overshadowed by trees with lilac blooms. In the distance, a profusion of vivid magenta flowers promiscuously cover a series of columns and arches. Over the plate of cured ham and melon, I reflect that if we are to cover the signing of the new reform treaty, then how much better if it will be here, than in the dull building in Brussels that squats next to the busy road that runs through the European Quarter of the city.

The Portuguese have the job of running the EU countries' business until Christmas, and they hope the highlight of their presidency will be the signing of the "Treaty of Lisbon". They certainly expect agreement to be reached in their capital and a final deal done here. But there is an argument. The meeting in October is an "informal summit" and a formal one is needed to sign off a treaty. And all formal meetings take place in Brussels these days. But perhaps there is a more pressing reason to hold the summit here than Portuguese pride and my self-indulgence. However the arguments develop about the document that replaces the constitution, I just can't see Gordon Brown signing up to the "Treaty of Brussels".

Portuguese George Clooney

I'm in Portugal to hear what plans Portugal has for the EU over the next six months. It's a smooth, well-organised trip. I am writing this on a coach to Porto that has wireless connection to the internet. Quite amazing. But this handing on of the baton from Germany, before it passes to Slovenia in January, does highlight one of the arguments about the new treaty. It proposes establishing an individual President of the Council - the Council being the name given meetings of the governments of EU states - instead of the current system, where countries take turns at being president every six months. There are arguments that this could develop into "a president of Europe" but the British government portrays it sheer common sense.

One tiny example of why some support this. It takes me about three hours to get my accreditation online. And I spend time doing this every six months. It's not the fault of the Portuguese, and probably has a lot to do with the BBC's own computer security. No-one's heart will bleed for me and other journalists having annoying few hours. But it does raise the question why we have to go through this bother every six months. Presumably all the thousands of diplomats, civil servants and politicians who come to the EU meetings have to do something similar. And that's just about badges. Each country that takes over may see it as an opportunity, but it also ties up civil servants in everything from designing websites and logos, to working in policy areas that may be completely new to them.

The Portuguese Prime Minister bounces into the room, shaking hands firmly. The firm verdict of my female colleagues is that Jose Socrates is a bit dishy, the George Clooney of Portuguese politics. The 49-year-old does have a certain style. Neat grey hair, fashionable sideburns, he's dressed in jeans and an open-necked blue shirt and suit jacket. It's very much the weekend uniform of the energetic leader, a la Sarkozy, a la early Blair. His demeanour is full of vitality and suggests he can't wait to get on with the business of setting the EU's agenda, even if sometimes his answers are so diplomatic as to be devoid of meaning. At least our meeting is on the record. Eventually. At first it was off the record, until the assembled EU correspondents objected. Then some remarks were on, and some off. And then he gave in.

Polish 'misunderstanding'

Which is a very good thing, because such formulations as "friends of the prime minister say..." and "the PM is believed to think" couldn't capture the heavy irony as he brands the latest Polish position as a "misunderstanding".

Through sheer intransigence at the summit, the Poles delayed a change to the voting system that everyone else wanted. Now they are saying there was an oral agreement that would give them still more concessions. Mr Socrates repeatedly says this must be a "misunderstanding because the deal was very clear." In case we don't get it, he repeats: "It can only be a misunderstanding. There were not 26 leaders but 27 around the table. There was a clear cut, precise mandate. That's why I call it a misunderstanding, there can be no other explanation." I think this translates as, "Don't try it on with me, sonny."

I've discussed before how much the 16-page agreement is open to dispute. But the Portuguese plan to unveil a full text on 23 July and then it will be up to legal experts and civil servants to argue about detailed wording. The foreign minister says, the work will be mainly legal and technical but if there any questions of interpretation, a new debate will have to be organised. That would probably happen at a meeting of foreign ministers in the second week of September.

World actor

Portugal's main job will be to get this treaty signed sealed and delivered. The Portuguese think there is an urgent need for it, so the European Union can play a much larger role on the world stage. They argue with some passion that with many crises around the world, the EU needs a beefed-up High Representative (the job that is no longer called "foreign minister") to play a "balancing" role on the world stage. Nearly all the issues they single out as top priority are about Europe as a world actor.

RUSSIA
Mr Socrates gets worked up about the summit with Russia in October and the need for better relations. Indeed, the urbane prime minister almost loses it with a journalist from Eastern Europe. The PM says that the disagreement with Russia "started with rotten meat and now we are talking about weapons. Weapons!" He doesn't suggest any way forward on the star wars row, but does talk at some length about his love for Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky and how Russian literature means that Russia has contributed to European culture. A journalist from Lithuanian radio says rather acidly that he could talk about Russian literature in some depth because he had read it in the original language, which he didn't necessarily want to learn, but was made to. People from countries like his knew the only way to deal with the Russians getting pushy was to push back.

Mr Socrates becomes extremely animated and rather steely. "I don't agree. I don't accept that. International relations don't work like that. Push the Russians! It's irresponsible! I'm not a guy who will contribute to increasing tensions, I want to lower the tensions." Afterwards we ask a friend (a real live one, not journalistic code for the man himself) why he felt so strongly. It seems Putin granted him a three-hour audience, a rare privilege for the leader of a small country and he was allowed to stay in the Kremlin ,an honour usually reserved for heads of states. But Mr S is clearly no fool and it's hard to imagine he's simply fallen for this sort of soft soap. Many western EU countries simply don't get how they feel in the East and that is a big problem for the future.

TURKEY
Maybe Mr Sarkozy should offer the Portuguese PM the best bedroom in the Elysee, because at the moment it seems he's not going to get the conference he wants on Turkey. The French president would like a summit to discuss Europe's borders, with the real aim of stopping negotiations with Turkey. The Portuguese, like the British, feel this would be a strategic blunder of massive proportions, destabilising Turkey at a difficult time and sending all the wrong signals to the Islamic world. The Portuguese don't quite rule it out, but the foreign minister said "it is very difficult to open another divisive debate when we haven't closed the last one (on the treaty)".

AFRICA
The Africa summit in December matters a lot to Portugal, and ministers say having proper relations with the continent is a priority for the European Union. The row will be whether or not they invite Robert Mugabe. Both Mr Socrates and the foreign minister reply with deliberately obscure gobbledygook about bilateral relations being different from relations with an organisation as a whole. This probably translates as, "We're crossing our fingers that the African Union will sort it out their end."

AND AN OLD CHESTNUT
While many at home argue the treaty is another big step down the road of European integration, many countries feel they've only made a small, hobbled step after Mr Blair added a ball and chain to the treaty. The number of British opt-outs again raises that old chestnut of a two-speed Europe, with some countries threatening (promising?) to press on without the laggards. The metaphor of speeds does imply we'll all get there in the end. The truth is that there already is an inner and outer core, with Britain as the most determined member of the outer ring. There is no realistic prospect of Britain joining the euro, or allowing EU citizens in without passports, and these are the most significant integrationist projects.

One French journalist from the left-wing daily Liberation suggests that Sweden Denmark and Britain are such a "stumbling block" they should be offered a privileged partnership - the same deal, far short of full membership, that Mr Sarkozy wants to offer Turkey. Mr Socrates replies that the mood in Sweden and Denmark is not a real problem and the countries are not stumbling blocks. What about the UK, I ask? He diplomatically replies that Britain has its own history, but the British are "more European than they themselves think they are". Well, are we?

UPDATE:
I'm somewhat in the dark, metaphorically and literally. The Portuguese are very keen on having a big summit with Africa, but is inviting Robert Mugabe a price worth paying? That's the question I've just asked the Portuguese PM at a news conference in the lovely city of Porto. He said that it was "an error" that for seven years "a diplomatic problem" had prevented vital dialogue. The logic of that is that they would invite him. But he says he hopes "a diplomatic formula" can be found.

So I don't know.

Certainly diplomats here hope that he just won't turn up, but that may be placing to much faith in Mr Mugabe's desire for compromise and easy relations for the greater good.

The other reason I'm in the dark is that my glasses have broken and I'm having to wear sunglasses to see anything beyond a blur. I can't even see my computer screen without them. The risk is that people will think this a pathetic attempt at cool at a moment of mid-life crisis. The alternative is that I stumble round bumping into things. Then people would think I had partaken too liberally of this lovely city's most famous product, which has wrecked the legs of many an English aristocrat. That would be more in character and so a less desirable interpretation.

UPDATE, 6 JUL: I've replied to some of your comments here.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?