Stradigma: In what ways do you think the Iraq war will affect global and regional dynamics? How in particular will the new geopolitics of Eurasia and the Middle East of which Turkey is a part shape in your opinion?

A. Eralp: This war has revealed many things. First of all, the US has been trying to assert its preponderance in the international system for a while. It has been trying to use this preponderance toward forming a unilateral system. When the pursuit of the United States of America is reconsidered, it is seen that this pursuit is essentially quite different from traditional pursuits. It is different from this angle; the United States of America had placed great emphasis on shaping the order and basing this on international cooperation and international organization in the aftermath of the Second World War. When we think about it, the creative aspect of American leadership was this in one sense. And within this context, it advanced cooperation with Europe, Europe was included in the international system and the system was built upon international organization. When we look at the latest, what we see is that the American administration has started to deviate from this system it itself has created and has been inclined to shape the system unilaterally. The problem in the international system has gained importance in this sense for some time.

Particularly with the end of the Cold War, the international system has become more complex compared to the Cold War period. As you know, the Cold War era was a simple bilateral system. Post-Cold War system has taken the shape of a system with more actors, an increased number of problems and with an intertwined set of problems. Unilateral management of this system has become even more difficult. However, the American administration has been inclined to shape the post-Cold War system more unilaterally and by more frequently resorting to military means particularly after Bush came to power for reasons partly based on the increase in its military might. This has especially been reflected on developments in the Middle East and Eurasia rather than Europe, if we think about it, unilateral and military solutions are more difficult in Europe. In this region, the European Union and the integration process have matured in the aftermath of the Second World War and a system based on cooperation and institutionalization centered around integration has been established. After the Cold War, the European Union attempted to spread this established system to Eastern Europe as well. In connection with this, we have seen an increase in international cooperation mechanisms and institutionalization in Central and Eastern Europe in the last decade.

When we look at the Middle East and Eurasia, there is a gap in this sense and these regions need to be integrated into the international system. At this point, how these regions will be integrated into the international system is a big question. Here, Europe and America could have cooperated. This could have been done within the framework of international institutionalization and cooperation yet we haven't seen this in the last decade. What we have seen was rather Europe being more concerned with problems within the continent of Europe, within Central Europe and with resolving problems in Central Europe first. For instance, although the European Union has recently started taking an interest in the Balkans, it did not do so initially. United States of America on the other hand was perhaps involved in European problems in the beginning, however, it then started withdraw from Europe and was more concerned with Eurasia and the Middle East. As a result of this, we have seen an increase in international rivalry in the Middle East and Eurasia, in other words, we have seen the reflection this new outlook by the United States of America on the region. Perhaps Europe and America were potentially united the objective of including Europe in the system during the Cold War period. It was conceivable to think whether or not the same would happen with respect to Eurasia after the Cold War but it didn't. Of course, it can take place over time, definite conclusions over this issue should be avoided for the time being. Yet the situation brought about by the Iraq War points out that the United States of America is keenly interested in Eurasia and the Middle East and that it is trying to take these regions under its own sphere of influence, while Europe (European Union) has tended to engage in Europe, Central Europe and probably the Balkans too. Hence, Turkey in one sense has found itself right at the heart or center of Europe-America rivalry. This will have huge consequences as far as Turkey is concerned.

Should Europe and America cooperate more in this region over time, it will affect Turkey very positively and Turkey will benefit from being at the heart of cooperation. Let's think that the status quo continues or reinforces. Let's envisage Turkey as squeezed between tension whereby a strengthened Europe, in particular the European Union having included Central Europe and turning later on to the Balkans, and America having increased its influence in the Eurasia region are competing. It is clear that such a scenario entails serious difficulties. If the Iraq war is considered as a departure point, I think that numerous transformations will be seen in the following years.

After the Iraq war, the United States of America will try to reshape the Middle East. Will a unilateralist outlook prevail in this reshaping, or will there be more cooperation with Europe, will it in a way lead to a strengthening of Europe and more European interest in these regions?

Stradigma: Do you think there can be a power struggle between the USA and the EU in the long run?

A. Eralp: Now when I look at it, I see that the gap with Europe has enlarged especially at this point in time with the influence of Bush administration's outlook, that there has emerged a different type of viewpoint between American and Europe. However, I also see that this is not easy to sustain in the long-term. The reason for this is that the European Union will become significantly powerful, not only economically but politically as well, should it include Central Europe within the European Union and be able to resolve Balkan problems within a period of 5-6 years. That is the EU will turn into the most influential force in Europe and will come closer to the Middle East region after including the Balkans. If we think of the Cyprus issue too, then we see that the EU has opened up to the Eastern Mediterranean region as well. This situation yields a European Union that would be more interested in political issues in the Middle East, Mediterranean and in the world.

Within this context, we are going to see whether or not the current outlook of the Bush administration will be permanent yet it is not easy for this outlook to be permanent. It is not easy for America to rule this geography on its own. From this standpoint, perhaps America will be more dominant in the short-run but in the long run, within ten years, the world can proceed to a point whereby there could be somewhat more cooperation between the USA and Europe across the world. This is of course related a bit to if the United States of America will share its governance of the world with Europe.

In the Cold War era, Europe had a rather secondary position vis-à-vis world governance. United States of America was omnipotent and it went on like this for a long time. In the last decade, the European Union has been on the rise and has been trying to institutionalize and bolster its foreign and security policy mechanisms. If the EU can carry this out, I think that it will have influence in global issues even if it cannot become a global actor, because the EU has gained a lot of power in economic terms, now it tries to transform this into political power. However, it does not desire to be a political power with similar approaches with the US during this transformation. USA is a power which more often than not resolves problems militarily, EU on the other hand is a power which tries to offer softer solutions by starting with economic integration and proceeding with political cooperation; assigning a secondary role to military means with the impact of the integration process. When we think of the European Union it has started attributing more importance to military issues in the last few years although different from America. EU puts greater emphasis on crisis preemption before the crisis erupts and within this framework it has been forming structures similar to itself like for instance in Central Europe. It has taken a long time but the EU has increasingly created structures close to itself within 8-10 years. When we think of it, a condition and structure has been emerging in Central Europe preventing wars similar to that in Western Europe.

Stradigma: Which regions are critical for the EU today?

A. Eralp: The Balkans, the EU now is trying to form structures close to itself in the Balkans. As we all know, Balkans, as a geography, which has experienced profound problems in the last decade and before, is a source of instability with frequent ethnic and border conflicts as far as Europe is concerned. As a result, the EU is trying to create a new and stable structure in this region. It is trying to resolve ethnic problems, reduce border conflicts and include these countries in the European integration process. If the EU manages to consolidate its own model, then this model will spread out to entire Europe. This model has strength; once it starts working and facilitates the desired cooperation, this model creates a security community and renders wars almost impossible. Along with this, it also has a weakness, a long amount of time is necessary for the application of this model, and quick success is not possible. This process has lasted 10 years for Central Europe, it will last perhaps 20 years for the Balkans.

Stradigma: Could it be possible for the EU to export this structuring process to the Middle East and Eurasia?

A. Eralp: It looks rather difficult for the Middle East and Eurasia. In terms of culture, economic and political structure, proliferating the instruments such European integration in those regions is not simple. It could take much longer for these regions, because above all there is a need to reach a certain cultural and economic point to extend such a structure. Once those are lacking, developing a model of this sort is difficult. On the other hand, if the EU develops this model only in Europe and not in regions in close proximity to Europe, then instability in nearby regions could affect itself. Consequently, it should institute perhaps not identical but similar structures in nearby regions and increase cooperation with these regions. For instance, the EU increases cooperation with Russia and Mediterranean countries as well, hence trying to foster softer relations and to preempt them from becoming sources of instability. But as I said, this is a process that can take a long time.

The end of the Cold War has had two huge political reflections. One was the division of Western and Eastern Europe and the political integration of Europe. The other important problem was the division of Europe and Asia. During the Cold War, both of these were very important issues, because there was detachment from the system due to the Soviet Union in both cases. The first issue, which was the division of Europe, was resolved when Eastern Europe was integrated into Western Europe and the European Union. The second issue, the division of Europe and Asia and the question of Europe is still the most important problem for the system. As the European Union is dealing with its own problems, it was not concerned with the Eurasia question, it did not want to be concerned that much either. America has attached great importance to the region from the outset. It first worked for the integration of Russia into the system but has not been very successful. Afterwards, it embarked on integrating Russia's neighborhood into the system by turning to Central Asia, Middle East, Caucasus and Afghanistan.

Stradigma: Can Russia be fully integrated into the system?

A. Eralp: It is not easy. The US has thought that it would first resolve Russia, which is a big issue. Although it undertook great efforts during the Yeltsin period, it then left the issue of Russia to time instead of resolving once the desired resolution did not come, the United States of America still exerts a lot of effort since it thinks that Eurasia can become an important source of instability. Should these regions be unstable, anti-system forces can flourish; indeed we have seen them develop in the last 10 years. This situation can affect American position within the Western system and it already does affect. As a result, integrating this region into the system has been considered very important in the last 10-15 years. The US has been greatly concerned with regions it thought of as sources of instability. As in the cases of Afghanistan and Iraq, the US has almost started compiling a list; it has focused on countries like Afghanistan, Iraq after Afghanistan, Syria, Iran, and North Korea and started projecting stability. Of course, whether or not it will be successful is another issue yet it has endeavored such an act on Iraq for the time being. War in Iraq has lasted shorter than predicted. Now there will be attempts to institute a new order, we will see the problems of that order for ourselves. What I can see is that it is not easy to resolve this by military means and in a short period of time, probably some stability can be established but what is more fundamental is the integration of Iraq into the international system, its inclusion in international cooperation and the formation of a functioning order. When the US intends to do this on its own, opposition will mount as well, it already did and will mount. During the Cold War era, the route to reducing opposition was slightly through cooperation and expansion of the legitimacy base. The US administration will now face difficulties about this point. Military solution maybe easy but creating order after that is more difficult. Political order, regional order, a more extensive order with respect to the Middle East and Eurasia and the integration of these regions into the system and making them parts of the international system are more challenging issues. With the current methods, it is not easy for America to realize this unilaterally and there will be an increasing need for cooperation with regionally and internationally prominent actors.

Stradigma: What can be the role of Turkey in the restructuring of Iraq?

A. Eralp: Turkey has two kinds of roles. First role is related to regional issues. As regional cooperation improves, Turkey has an important role to play in regional cooperation mechanisms as a country, which has a say-so in the region. From this standpoint, the US needs to constitute a framework of regional cooperation involving such important regional powers as Turkey, Iraq-to-be, Israel and Egypt when devising a regional system in the Middle East. For this, it will not suffice for the US to resolve the Iraq problem, how the Israel-Palestine problem will be resolved will also gain importance because it is not easy to develop cooperation in the region without a resolution to the Israel-Palestine problem. From that angle, I believe that the US will have to deal with the Palestine-Israel problem as soon as possible after the Iraq issue.

When you ask what type of a resolution can be devised for the Iraq problem, I can say that this problem is not easy to resolve. That the US first deals with Iraq and with Syria afterwards show its inclination to resolve the Palestinian problem favorable to Israel. That the US influence Syria and then deals with Palestine-Israel question hints that resolution will be more favorable to Israel. However, it is not easy to know how this will be resolved for the time being.

Possibly for the first time, the US is becoming a political actor inside the Middle East with the Iraq war. I think this is a very important development and it will complicate the position of Turkey, because there is popular pressure developing within Turkey for not being so close with the US and for acting more cautiously. Therefore, there is a strong need to improve relations with the EU within this context. Relations with the EU can serve as a counter-balancing element to some extent. However, should EU-US relations grow too competitive, then Turkey will find itself right at the center of this and will paralyze. However, should some degree of cooperation flourish, the European Union takes an interest in this region and America cooperates with the EU in some issues, then Turkey could take it up from there. In that case, Turkey would go through fewer tensions and could act more with more space in the resolution of regional problems. Both the US and the EU can need Turkey. And the EU will start attaching great importance to the states of the region when in the next 8-10 years it starts developing its Mediterranean and Middle East policies.

Stradigma: Do you think that US support to Turkey's EU membership will continue in the future?

A. Eralp: I think that this is a secondary-ranking issue. Up until now, the US has always supported Turkey's EU membership and this has always been discussed. What needs to be considered is this; the US has always tried to influence the EU project. At the beginning of the project, the US was right inside Europe and it was even influencing Europe from inside. In that sense, the EU project was not merely the project of the Europeans, it was almost a joint American-European project. The US had supported the European integration project as much as Western Europeans during the Cold War. At that time, the creation of such an alliance against the Soviet Union was necessary and Western Europe needed to be strengthened. But over time, this situation has started to change and American power to influence the Western European project has declined. When you look at it now, the US has required the admission of Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic and other Central and Eastern European states into NATO within 10 years following the end of the Cold War and most countries joined NATO before they joined the EU. Hence, it tried to prevent those countries from adopting an anti-American position. As has been the case in the last crisis, it is seen that most prospective EU members often pursue policies close to those of America. The issue of Turkey should be evaluated in this fashion and the US this way or the other wants an EU that is close to itself and it wants states closer to itself to be in the EU. Past American pressures on Britain to become a member of the European Community and current support to Poland and Baltic states are reflections of this point of view. The US thinks that the admission of a country like Turkey into the EU would increase its own influence on the EU. Apart from this, Turkey's stability is important for the US and the US desires a Turkey that is economically and politically influential in this region. For this reason, Turkey needs to become a part of the West yet being under American influence does not easily attain becoming part of the West, because political and economic stability in Turkey is not easy to secure through American influence. The EU has a more influential position with respect to this issue. The EU provides transformation, structural change and stability in countries it deals with by affecting economic and political mechanisms. When you look at it from that angle, the US is of the opinion that Turkey needs to have good relations with the EU so as to become part of the West. In matters of political and economic transformation, the EU has a very strong position. Large-size countries like Turkey can only become full parts of the West by being close to the EU. There can be great risks involved, there is no guarantee. At the time, Iran was a very important ally of the America. Many countries can join the West for a while and then leave. Anti-Western forces develop, they don't want something of that sort to happen in Turkey because Turkey is in a pivotal region. They are very worried about the development of anti-Western forces in Turkey which is located in such sensitive a point for the system, they are extremely nervous that Islamic outlooks in Turkey will turn into Islamic political movements. From the perspectives of America, other powers and actors, it is very important that these are confined to a certain level. When you think of it from that point of view, the US wants Turkey to take part in the Western system.

Will taking part in the Western system happen in a general sense or will the Western system split into two as Europe and America and what will be there in that case? As far as I can see it, should there be a split and an intense Europe-America rivalry, Turkey will find itself right at the center of it and will face serious difficulty. Not only Turkey, Europe and America too will face difficulties. Or the rivalry between the two will reflect on all countries and regions close to Turkey, creating intense rivalry in all of the regions. How the rivalry between America and Europe shape is very important from this angle. Is it going to be in a cooperative framework of the sort during the Cold War era or is it going to of the sort whereby rivalry turns into struggle? Rivalry is conceivable yet if rivalry turns into struggle, it can have systemic effects. The most important question is if Cold War cooperation can turn into cooperation involving the Eurasia region this time after the Cold War? I think that we are going through the pains of these at this moment. There is no cooperation between them now and there is even a case whereby rivalry is transforming into struggle.

Stradigma: Can the EU become a rival to the US in the future by increasing its military power?

A. Eralp: It is not so easy for the EU to raise its armed forces and military facilities to the level of those of the US but since there is an integration movement, they are also intent on improving their military capabilities, yet of course they have a 10-year perspective regarding this sphere. Perhaps for reasons resulting from the Iraq war this can be shortened.

In fact, EU countries can allocate more to military spending in their budgets, as this is an important political decision. However, right now, the portion allocated to military spending is considerably limited in European countries' budgets. In the future they can increase this a bit and a lot would change in that case, because we are talking about 15-20 countries here. However, even if the 10-year perspective is shortened, it is not possible for them to reach the level that would enable them to compete with US military power within the following 3-5 years. In that sense, the EU should not be thought of as a hard power attaching importance to military matters and as a military power. Yet what could happen is that the preponderance of the EU in the international system can increase if the internal problems and differences of the EU can be reduced. The vulnerability of the EU is not only in relation to military matters, different perspectives exist between member states over political matters as well. For instance, if the EU had a common position on the Middle East and Iraq as opposed to what the case is now, in fact if only it had merely a common policy rather than a common position, EU influence could increase. When we look at it now, the EU has started to put in place a common policy vis-à-vis the Balkans within the last 3-4 years. With respect to the Middle East, the case previously experienced concerning the Balkans is seen.

In my opinion, what is more important than military matters is EU countries' ability to reach a common position because EU countries can later on formulate common policies on issues on which they can reach a common position, and then EU mechanisms start working on those. The largest problem I see in the EU is in relation to the issue of Mediterranean and the Middle East. As the US has the power to influence the EU, the US has been trying to pull the EU toward itself in political terms at such points. The US did just that in the Iraq war. Since the US has seen that the EU was not ready at that point and that it would not be able to formulate a common position, it used this particular vulnerability of the EU. When the EU experienced this vulnerability in the past over the Balkans it has been a huge trauma, then a common position could be formulated on the Balkans over time. However, we see that the EU moves slowly. For example, I am sure that the impact of the Iraq crisis on the EU will be discussed within 5-10 years and they will put forward efforts toward resolving the problem. Of course they were 15 member states, now they are going to be 25 and this is a very challenging and slow mechanism. It is not like the US where a single state takes decisions fast and implements them fast. I don't think that the EU will become a significant military force like the US but that when these different viewpoints within itself are reconciled, it will act concertedly in political matters and in that case it can turn into a very significant force and one that has much more legitimacy in the international system than the US.

In a globalizing world with mounting inequalities, the EU is trying to advance toward a different point and trying to become a power with more legitimacy, one that is viewed more positively by the international society. In fact, when you look at Europe's past, it has a very negative past like the colonization period. They want to head to a more positive direction from this negative past, they want to strip themselves of this bad past image. But we will see if they will be able to act together in this respect.

Stradigma: Will the 25-member EU be able to overcome political, economic and cultural problems stemming out from enlargement? Do you think there could be dissolution in the future of the EU in the light of these problems?

A. Eralp: As far as I can see dissolution is not conceivable, what is important is can this integration project proceed or not? This subject is sometimes discussed wrongly in Turkey. Even though the European integration process is slow, it is a process of progress and it is a process from which there has almost never been deviation. They have progressed significantly particularly in the sphere of economic integration and I don't think there will be any regression in this sphere, I even think that the Euro over time will turn into a currency with as much weight as the Dollar in the international system. The problem here is that will the EU be able to transform economic integration into political integration? They have progressed significantly with respect to this issue in the last decade, by now they are working on foreign policy and security matters together. For many years the area of security was completely left to NATO, the EU had never concentrated on the area of foreign policy alongside security. Now they have embarked on foreign policy and security areas and formed the ESPD (European Security and Defense Policy). Common Foreign and Security Policy was initiated in the beginning, later on this turned into ESPD, these are very important steps for the EU. If you start examining an issue, you formulate a common position on it and then this turns into policy. In the last 3-4 years, the EU has come a long way with respect to ESPD.

Even though the EU does not have at its disposal as much military planning and military force as envisaged, it has been institutionalizing incrementally. We are going to see how institutionalized the EU will get in the spheres of security and defense within the following 8-10 years and its independence from NATO with which it is cooperating at the moment as it becomes more powerful. For this reason, I do not foresee dissolution in the future of the EU but progress, even though it may be incipient.

The real question is the question of if they can be able to progress as fast as required by problems in the world? For the time being, they cannot progress as fast. European integration progresses to the extent that member can get over differences amongst themselves. For example Eastern European states wanted to join the EU as of 1990-1991, they could have said fine we are going to admit you as members right in 1995, but they didn't say that. Copenhagen criteria have been compiled in relation to this in such detail as has never been before to that date. Enormous pressure has been exerted on Eastern European states, there has been pressure on them to transform rapidly, to resolve problems with their neighbors and minority problems and they have embraced these states after slowly transforming them within a period of 10 years. In the following 10 years, what we are going to see will be that these states will become EU members including Yugoslavia and Serbia. Of course as the number of members increases, so do the problems of the EU, perhaps decision-making mechanisms can differ in the future. Indeed, there is a substantial reform process in the EU at the moment, this process is being discussed at the Convention, it will then be discussed at inter-governmental conferences and very important decisions will be taken in the years ahead, a constitution is likely to be drafted. New decisions can emerge concerning decision-making during the work on institutionalization, decisions can be concentrated in specific bodies. There will be a much more concrete institutionalization with respect to foreign policy, maybe one person will be responsible for foreign policy.

We will see this all of course but I think that there will not be dissolution in the EU but an incipient process whereby there will be more cooperation in political matters. Frankly, the EU has emerged much stronger out of the process of admitting 10 Eastern European states. I see the EU as the actor, which has strengthened the most in the last decade. I think that it has undertaken a substantial transformation by admitting 10 countries it lived separately during the Cold War era in such a short period of time as 10 years. In general, things that the EU did not do strike rather than those it did. There are things the EU couldn't do, and there are things it did, a larger perspective is necessary. In the last 50 years, I see continuing progress in the EU.

Stradigma: What do you think Turkey's stance toward the EU membership process should be?

A. Eralp: If the EU will be able to attract Turkey to its side with respect to developments that can take place in the Middle East in the period ahead, this is very important. Turkey has problems with many states in the region, there is the problem of Cyprus in the Mediterranean. Hence, Turkey should alter its policies both in the Balkans and in the Mediterranean and the Middle East while heading toward the EU process at the same time. Turkey can be advantageous for the EU should it be able to develop different relations with states in the region. At the moment, the EU thinks that Turkey cannot be much of a contribution with disputes and problems it has with numerous states in the region. To give one example, when Spain applied to the EU, it constantly emphasized the point that it would improve EU's relations with Latin America with which it had fully developed relations and attempted to demonstrate that improved relations with Latin would not only be in the interests of Spain but also of the EU. After Spain joined the European Community (EC) a Latin America policy appeared, EC members did not have a Latin America perspective before that. At the moment, the EU is an important actor in commercial and political affairs in Latin America. In similar terms, Poland kept trying to deliver this message when in the process of becoming an EU member: we are not simply important for you as Poland, we will also develop your relations with Ukraine, contribute to improving your relations with Russia and when you admit us the Eastern Europe policy of the EU will be formulated. Poland constantly tried to put this forward and was successful to a certain extent. Now the EU considers what the contribution of Turkey can be.

Stradigma: How would the signing of the of EU membership treaty by the Greek Cypriot Administration with the name "Republic of Cyprus" on April 16th affect Turkey' s membership process to the EU?

A. Eralp: With considerable influence from Greece, the EU was plunged into the question of Cyprus and had to admit Southern Cyprus as a member without being able to resolve the Cyprus problem in the way it desired. Essentially, this process has been a very sad one as far as EU processes are concerned because the EU was thinking that the Cyprus problem could be resolved in the beginning of the process and that they would not need to admit a divided Cyprus. They were planning that they would be able to admit the island as a whole after resolving the problem and that they would be able to improve relations with Turkey yet it did not happen that way. Of course here there has been the influence of Greece's policies and its pushing the EU to its side. Nevertheless, I don't think that the EU has dropped this issue, that is it will want the resolution of the problem in Cyprus this way or the other, because a divided island such as this and problems between two communities living there are not desirable for the EU that has taken an interest in the Mediterranean and the Middle East. EU wants to reach out to Western Balkans where there are two important states, one is an EU member and the other is a candidate. Should there be huge problems and tensions between these two states, then it is not possible for the EU to be successful. Now think of states like Albania, Macedonia and Bosnia that are close to Turkey. At this moment, they are in the process of integration with the EU and they will probably be EU members. On the other hand, Greece has close relations with states like Serbia. Thus, if problems between Turkey and Greece are not resolved, problems will be encountered in the future. Relations between Turkey and Greece need to reach a certain level, this relationship should turn into cooperation. At this stage, the question of Cyprus primarily and later on the Aegean problems should be resolved immediately. There should be more cooperation between Greece and Turkey, establishing a model of cooperation of with other states in the region within the EU framework also gains importance. There is a very crucial 1-year period ahead of us with respect to the point Cyprus problem has reached, next May the Republic of Cyprus will have been a full member of the EU. Both the EU and other actors need to make good use of this year.

Stradigma: What types of policies do you think Turkey should pursue in the process of resolution of the Cyprus problem?

A. Eralp: If it is to become a full member of the EU, Turkey should review its outlook on this issue. There is a 1.5-year period ahead of us until the December of 2004. A fresh national program will be drafted and this program has to be drafted with a one-year perspective, hence, what Turkey can do in a year should be identified clearly and these should be activated within a year. If Turkey does not start membership negotiations in the beginning of 2005 at the latest, then its EU membership will head toward a very different direction. At the same time, the Cyprus problem needs to be moved to a different point rather than being a source of tension. A perspective agreed upon by everybody on how Northern Cyprus will be integrated into the EU needs to be formulated. The gap that characterizes the matter today needs to be removed. Southern Cyprus has joined the EU but what will happen to Northern Cyprus? According to the UN, Northern Cyprus is a place that does not exist in legal terms. There is a de facto situation but there is a big de jure problem. This cannot go on like this for 8-10 years, it will even become a more severe problem once Southern Cyprus becomes a member in 2004.

EU, Turkey, Greece and Cyprus need to reach an agreement on this issue. We can face numerous lawsuits due to Turkey's position in Northern Cyprus and there can be a constant problem of legitimacy in that respect.

As Turkey proceeds to dealing with regional issues with the USA, it should not confine its foreign policy horizons to the US. I think that many crucial mistakes have been made in the last 10 years in foreign policy directions and this should be sustained any further.

Stradigma: To which direction do you think Turkey should head in its foreign policy?

A. Eralp: There is no need to rediscover the world, where all actors in our region have headed that is the EU, we need to include ourselves in this integration movement. Balkan states like Bulgaria, Romania are heading toward the EU, which they observe as the most important integration movement. Turkey too should do the obvious and speed up relations it had established a long time ago, should be able to pursue EU by now and turn it into a conceivable project. Turkey is missing this opportunity and the cost increases every time it misses. For instance, if it became a member in the 1970s together with Greece, Portugal and Spain or with Eastern European states now, it would be different. All states in Turkey's neighborhood are there, Turkey is at a vague stage and this causes huge problems. On the other hand, what is in fact interesting is that half of Cyprus too is a member of the EU that is integration is that close to Turkey. By now, Turkey should have the power to resolve a problem that is so close to itself. Of course relations with the US should not be strained, and that is a diplomatic skill. Turkey should be more involved in regional issues but should not think of this as an alternative to the EU. That is, improving relations with Iran, Syria or Egypt would not only be beneficial for itself but also for the EU. The EU will realize this over time, and be more interested in these regions and there will be a coincidence of interests at that point. If Turkey can demonstrate its contribution to this, it will have a role and influence in the Balkans, the Mediterranean, the Middle East and in the EU at the same time. Otherwise, Turkey can both be excluded from the EU process and can become a country without any influence even though it is included. Therefore, there is a need in Turkey for the type of leadership that has the capability to unite these points in the following period. When you look at it from inside, political establishments that have existed in Turkey for the last 10-15 years cannot even approach what we say in terms of skills. Because close contact with the world, well acquaintance with the world, concerted action with the world and knowing where to act all at the same time are very important. Not only watching the world but also being in relations with leaders, establishments are necessary, this is the kind of world we are living in today. In the last few days' regional problems have gained great significance particularly with the influence of the Iraq war but Turkey always prefers to speak from a distance, its culture of dialog is strong. I don't believe that current leaders have an improved culture of dialog with the world. Of course, the influence of ever changing cadres is big here. Incoming cadres learn the business a bit, then others come, that is a constant process of learning is being experienced. These big changes in cadres at times when these big problems are being encountered contribute significantly to the already existing domestic political inertia. In my opinion, the international system and regional dynamics almost force Turkey to change. It will sound like an analogy but Turkey changes slowly a bit like the EU. The EU has the luxury of being wealthy, tranquile and stable but does Turkey have the same luxury to change this slowly and hardly? In the current system of the world you need to transform fast one way or the other, when you are slow you lag too much. For me, the real question or problem for Turkey: the problem of if Turkey will be able to accelerate and change. International and regional dynamics dictate this but will Turkey be able to utilize these available opportunities? Because there is a big potential in Turkey but grasping and realizing that potential is of course a different issue. The period ahead will be critical in this respect.

Stradigma: Considering the latest transformations in the international system lately, could it be suggested that the UN has been examined on its influence in the peaceful resolution of conflicts and that it has failed? Parallel to the Iraq war, can the point reached with respect to Cyprus be interpreted as showing that current international organizations have lost credibility and that they have failed to fulfill their functions?

A. Eralp: Sure it can be interpreted that way but being too harsh should be avoided. As international organizations always work in cooperation with great powers, they are organizations that are shaped by how those powers look at international organizations and they either strengthen or weaken based on that. For instance, the League of Nations that was established after the First World War has collapsed over time despite that many problems were not caused by the League itself since great powers did not look at it favorably. Following the Second World War, the United Nations Security Council could not function in a healthy way for a long time. And why couldn't it? Soviet Union and the US were in constant struggle and they always used their veto power in the UN in important problems. It could not function later on during the Cold War period and military alliances were established at that time, NATO and Warsaw Pact. When the Cold War came to an end, Warsaw Pact collapsed and when the Soviet Union disintegrated, it was speculated that the UN would better function now, veto power would not be used too frequently, at least the Soviet Union would not be able to use it. However, after that point, the US has started slowly distancing itself from the UN. US approached NATO for a while, as it was an organization that was closer to the US and one that the US could mobilize more easily. Lately, distancing from the UN has gained ground since other members have begun acting more sensitively when the US started to resolve issues unilaterally and to resort to military solutions. Upon this, the US started distancing itself from the UN thinking that it would not be able to get a decision in the UN Security Council. The decision-making process in the UN has grown more difficult and the UN role in security related matters has declined considerably. If you ask what this can lead to, either the US outlook will change or the UN will be replaced with another institution, when I say this I mean for instance there is a possibility of strengthening NATO or establishing a new organization. However, it is not so easy to establish an institution on the scale of the UN. But there could be a situation whereby UN is deserted, some of its functions transferred to NATO or as we said earlier, the US distances itself even more from this military outlook, a review of the UN Security Council, some kind of reformation, the provision of a larger participation base or a different approach in its handling of issues. Because there is the long-time dispute over if the UN is fit enough for the post-Cold War order. There are approaches, which propose new permanent members while keeping the old ones, which question the decision-making mechanism and try to change it. Turning to where we started, the role played by great powers in international organizations is very important, as such, if the US sustains its current attitude toward the UN, it is not easy for the UN to live, in the sense that its membership can decline. However, if the US changes, if it becomes more prone to cooperation, there is a need for such an international organization, which can improve international cooperation, which can produce non-military solutions and intervene in problems.