The official explanation for this drastic measure was that the EU could not negotiate accession requirements with a country, which refuses to open its ports and airports to a full member of the Union, i.e. Cyprus. But according to many observers the real explanation is much simpler. They feel that the EU as a smokescreen in the debate is using the Cyprus dispute over whether Turkey should be allowed to join the EU.

Cyprus, it seems, is quite happy to play this strange role of being used as the judge, the jury and the accuser in this dispute. Most Turkish-Cypriots and mainland Turks believe that the EU's objective in putting the Greek-Cypriots in such a powerful position is to humiliate them and to force them to abandon the negotiating table. In this context, they also point out that if Turkey is being accused of not trading with the Greek part of the island, the EU can also be blamed for not fulfilling its 2004 pledge to end its trade embargo on the Turkish part of the island.

The conflict between the Greek and Turkish-Cypriots is an old one. In 1571, the Ottoman Turks conquered the island of Cyprus, which was then mainly populated by the descendants of Greek-speaking settlers from the Peloponnese. The Turkish-Cypriots are the descendants of immigrants from Anatolia and the Turkish soldiers who settled in the island. The British wrested control of the island from the Turks during the First World War and later, in 1924, converted it into a crown colony.

Initially, the Greek Cypriots, who constitute the majority, welcomed the British rule because they felt that eventually Britain would help them fulfill their long-held ambition to unite with Greece (enosis). But the Turkish Cypriots, who constitute a significant minority, opposed this plan. They wanted the British to return the island to Turkey or to partition it. The demand for "enosis and only enosis" by the Greek Cypriots led first to riots and then to wide-spread terrorist activities against the British and the Turkish Cypriots, which finally ended in 1960 when, under the treaties signed by the Greek and Turkish Cypriots, Cyprus became an independent republic. Greece, Turkey and Britain guaranteed the integrity of the new country.

Unfortunately, peace between the two communities did not last long. Fighting broke out in 1963, and continued off and on until 1974, during which the Turkish community suffered significant territorial losses. Actually the Turkish controlled area was reduced to only a few enclaves. During the course of the conflict, Turkey had become concerned about the role played by the Greek army in Cyprus and had threatened full-scale invasion of the island to protect the Turkish-Cypriots.

In July 1974 the situation came to a head. With the objective of demonstrating that the annexation of Cyprus was a fait accompli, officers of the ruling military junta in Athens overthrew the government of Cyprus and installed a puppet regime under the leadership of a fanatic enosis supporter. Turkey immediately responded by invading the island.

Despite fierce resistance, in a about a month's time, Turkey took control of the northern 37% of the island. From 1975 to 1983 the Turkish-Cypriots negotiated without success to have a federal government with two autonomous regions. In 1983 an independent Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus was proclaimed, which has so far been recognised only by Turkey. Turkey also maintains a fairly large contingent of soldiers on the island.

The relationship between the two communities still remains very hostile. With the help of the EU, the Greek part of the island has prospered economically but because of the trade embargo imposed by the EU the economic situation in the Turkish part has deteriorated gradually over the years.

In 2004, after months of ground-work, the United Nations submitted a plan to unify the island, which was overwhelmingly accepted by the Turkish-Cypriots but rejected by the Greek-Cypriots. In spite of this rejection the EU soon gave full membership to the Greek part of the island, thus empowering the Greek-Cypriots to exercise veto power over Turkish accession.

The EU to bar Turkish membership could also interpret this decision as a pre-emptive action. But why are so many Europeans hostile to the idea of Turkey's accession to full membership? What are their fears and misgivings? Are these fears and misgivings justified?

One of the reasons put forward by some European politicians is that geographically, Turkey does not belong to Europe. Turkey has been a member of the NATO since 1952 (even a few years before the European Economic Community itself was founded), militarily defending the eastern flank of Europe against the Soviet Union, and it has been a member of the Council of Europe since its inception. No one, then, bothered to mention that Turkey was not European. Again, geographically, if Turkey is not considered to be European, how can Cyprus and Malta be considered to be part of Europe and the EU?

The fact that Turkey is big is often held against it. Many Europeans fear that, given Turkeys high birth rate, by 2030 it will become the most populous member of the club and, thus, will be able to control the decision-making process. This fear is unfounded because, under the double majority voting system, Turkey alone will be unable to influence the decision making process in a club with close to 30 members.

There is also a fair bit of hypocrisy and prejudice in this fear. After all, no such fear was demonstrated in 1990 when East Germany joined the EU as part of reunified Germany, thus converting Germany into the most populous country of the Union with maximum representation.

There are, of course, other excuses like its backward agricultural economy and immigration. The way Turkish economy is currently growing, and the amount of foreign investment that is flowing into the country, should make Turkey an attractive market for EU goods and services in the near future.

If allowed in, Turkey might repeat Ireland's performance as a member of the EU. As far as immigration is concerned, instead of being a burden, Turkey's mostly young population may prove to be a boon to the sustainability of Europe's economic growth. After all, everybody knows that Europe's aging population is a major problem for its future economic growth.

The possibility of joining the EU has induced Turkey to make "near revolutionary changes" in the fields of human rights, women's rights and freedom of expression. The judicial system has undergone major reforms, and death penalty has been abolished. The Turkish government has given assurances that it will continue to work hard in these fields to meet the EU requirements.

The real reason why many Europeans are against Turkey's membership is the fact that Turkey is a predominantly Muslim country. They tend to forget that it has a secular constitution. Although the EU constitution provides for religious freedom, unfortunately, many Europeans consider the EU as a Christian club, and not as a "community of values" as the current Spanish and Turkish prime ministers would like it to be.

The EU was born to eliminate the age-old Franco-German rivalry, which led to two World Wars in the last century alone with disastrous consequences, and to give new meaning to the term civilization. So, instead of insisting on petty differences -- some real and some imaginary -- why not be true visionaries and make the EU a meeting place where "civilizations can harmonize" and work together for peace, stability and prosperity?

The writer is a columnist of The Daily Star.