Question: But why does the EU call it "Progress Report for 2007"?

Soylemez: Because the EU Commission, which owns the Report, knows full well, as Turkey is aware, that there was hardly any progress in Turkey-EU relations this year, or rather no progress at all, but in diplomatic language a spade is never called a spade, and courtesy is nearly always the order of the day. Therefore with some respect and encouragement it is called Progress Report, like its three other predecessors.

Question: How was the Report received in Turkey?

Soylemez: While the Ministry of Foreign Affairs described it as disappointing, in contrast the Minister of Economy, Mehmet Simsek, described it "balanced, creative and factual."

Question: In its broad outlines, how does this one compare with the previous annual report of 2006?

Soylemez: As there was no progress, but mostly a standstill, a general cooling-off, the tone of the 2007 Report is softer and more diplomatic with some phrases about Turkish democracy to be happy about.

Question: Can we have some examples?

Soylemez: The report lauds the workings of democracy, the general election and election of the President.

Question: What are the major points of criticism?

Soylemez: The Report is factual and in many instances right in its criticisms, such as the question of Article 301 which is a fact. The EU urges the amendment of 301 as a major stumbling block on the way to membership negotiations. Article 301 was put on the backburner for a long time.

Question: Why do you say it was put on the backburner?

Soylemez: The EU-Turkey relations negotiation process all through 2007 was put on the backburner intentionally by the EU following a heated inside debate among the members, so the negotiating partners needed a cooling off period, hence the backburner concept with a slow fire. Article 301 was part of this period of depression. The impression was given that technical issues were continuing to be negotiated, with no public ado.

Question: Is not the Report for 2007 an occasion to underline the shortcomings of Turkey?

Soylemez: These Reports, generally speaking, aim to be critical, so that these shortcomings can be corrected to the advantage of the membership negotiations. None of these points of criticism are unknown to Turkey. Many of these corrections have to be made for Turkey's interest alone. In that sense the points of criticism in many instances are statements of the obvious, but the Commission is obliged to mention them, such as the problem of corruption and the fight against it, which is fortunately continuing with some measure of success.

Question: Following your backburner analogy, and period of depression, how does Turkey revive the momentum?

Soylemez: I must answer your question with another question. Is the time ripe? Is the EU Commission now ready to precipitate the process of the membership negotiations? That answer, if possible, is of crucial importance. I have an impression that Turkey is still on the backburner, on a slow fire, to repeat the analogy. Turkey needs more encouragement on the part of the Commission. While Turkey should proceed with the urgently needed reforms for her own sake, there must be a response, a show of willingness, on the part of the EU Commission towards speeding up the membership negotiations. It is a question of the chicken or the egg story.

Question: Would it be correct to say that these relations have been at a critical crossroads for some time?

Soylemez: To call a spade a spade, progress or no progress at all, the membership negotiation process has never started in earnest, except for one or two symbolic chapters. Don't forget that no less than 8 chapters stand suspended, to punish Turkey for not opening her ports to Greek Cypriots, which is described as a legal EU obligation. In the remaining 26 chapters negotiations may be opened, instead of being closed, to keep open as if they had never started. Whatever can be said in favour and optimistically, is that negotiations are continuing to save appearances with no willingness and no enthusiasm on either side.

Question: Can anti-Turkey countries be blamed for this situation?

Soylemez: President Sarkozy is as blunt as he can be. Chancellor Merkel cannot be described as a Turkey supporter. Austria is strongly behind them. You don't need Greek Cypriots and Greece to support Turkey's membership negotiations for them to be precipitated. The anti-Turkey camp may be a small minority in numbers, but they have the bigger say in the direction of the Commission, while the Commission and its President and Commissioner Olli Rehn maintain the legalistic position of the Commission in support of Turkey's membership. This decision was taken solemnly by the EU Council and it was a historic decision taken unanimously. Now there is a feeling that that decision may have been a mistake as there is a surge of excuses and subterfuges as to how the EU can leave Turkey out in the cold. The approaching revival of the Cyprus question in 2009 will present a golden opportunity for the anti-Turkey camp.

Question: What about the pro-Turkey EU countries injecting some commonsense against Turkey-bashers?

Soylemez: EU members like Britain, Spain, Italy, Sweden, Finland, the Czech Republic, perhaps Slovenia and Belgium are on the side of Turkey's EU membership as a point of no return, but, whatever the opposition, I am hoping that 2012 may be a date for the EU to decide on Turkey's membership for good. If this prognosis is correct, the negotiation must be concluded by around 2010. In fact, 2014 is a date projected by the Turkish private sector, with which I tend to agree, because from the the economic point of view Turkey is ready, bearing in mind that membership is a political decision which will be taken by the politicians.

Question: But Turkish public opinion support for the EU indicates a sharp fall in EU supporters, doesn't it?

Soylemez: It is true that the percentage has fallen from 78% two years ago to about 35% now, but public opinion temperature can fluctuate from day to day, both in Turkey and the EU countries.

Question: Some analysts, or statesmen, propose 2020 or 2025 as Turkey's earliest membership date, don't they?

Soylemez: Turks are a patient lot and they are known for their perseverance. Turkey has waited for membership for the last half a century. By then Turkey will have a population of 85-90 million which may have reached the position of the twelfth biggest economy in the world with its incomparable dynamism, with its trained and young workforce, as a major power in the Middle East with a trade balance of no less than 500 billion euro, a hub of energy lines of oil and natural gas feeding Europe with the Baku-Ceyhan and Nabucco projects, on a par with the Maastricht Treaty, a member of the Euro-zone before her membership, thinking big, with or without the Progress Report.