Turkey's EU membership

[Boghos]

Truce.

[Guest Fadi]

Boghos, even if I agree with your opinion about Ali, I certainly not agree with your attack against Thoth, it may be an irony, but I think it was badly placed, if you have a difference with him, you should PM him, its in the nature of thoth to be as diplomatic.

 

Now about Ali, Thoth if you remember Observer and Azimov, I just want to remember you what happened at the end, both were forced to recognise the genocide, Azimov really made it clear, but later it did not stoped him to continue slandering the Armenians, but I even believe that them recognised more the genocide then Ali has done.

 

I was able to find 5 types of behavours I observed among Turks.

 

1- Deny, and post crap they really believe in.

 

2- Deny, but know that their position can't stick, but still persist, but inside they know that they are wrong.(Observer and Azimov)

 

3- Recognise the form deny the most important ellements, well not exactlly deny, but rather don't understand. (Ali is in that category)

 

4- Recognise most of all that happened, but escape using the term genocide, even if what they believe is exactlly the definition of the word(Bertkay is an example, that even if afraid of using the term genocide, the way he discribe it, will bring the reader to conclude that the massacres were planned and executed, while Fikret Adanir, use the term genocide, but he escape the part of premeditation). Some of my Turkish friends were like that Artun for example, had difficulties using the word genocide, while what I was able to make him accept meant genocide, Artun while recognising facts that Ali don't, he unlike Ali was not using the word.

 

5- Just plainly recognise, don;t even dare to justify, don;t even dare to bring so-called Armenian rebellions, plainly and totally recognise Turkey as the responsable, without entering in so-called technicalities of why it is not exactlly this or that. There is few Turks like this, Ceyhun is an example, Thorny another, in Turkish accademia, there is Taner Akcam, Zarakollu, and mostly his wife that died months ago... there is also the editor of Info-Turk etc...

 

Every Turks enter in those categories, that are stads I observed, the majority of them start by one, and the part 3, often is ignored, those that take part 3, are those Turkish aristocracy.

 

I could developpe this in future.

[Guest Fadi]

Dear Nairi,

 

I respect Thoth opinion, and always respected them, he is a good friend of mine now for 3 years, Boghos is also a friend, I just did not wanted that others put oil in the fire, and that was what you were doing with your answer. Both Boghos and Thoth are very respectfull people and they can come to a "truce" and this is what happened.

 

Regards

[nairi]

Not really. I was merely responding to Boghos, regardless to whom his post was directed. Oh well.

 

But you're right.

 

[ November 09, 2002, 09:05 AM: Message edited by: nairi ]

[joseph]

To all nations of the world:

1) unvail your women

2) take the faze off your mens head

3) put on europian clothes

4) adopt europian alphabets

5) have some kined elections

6) ally your country with the U S A

Walla you got it, now you can join the EU Mebership regardless of your human wrights violations or miss treatment of your minorities .

WHAT A JOKE .

[Sip]

Now we're talkin!!!

[joseph]

Sip is that the only thing got your atention from my post , now dont get any ideas . I did not mean UNDRESS your women . I meant how Turkey thinks that the Eu. should allaw her to be a member by taking those painful ???? steps .

[THOTH]

Hovsep - I think I get your point. But from an American perspective Turkey isn't necessarily all that different then other European nations. There are some real differences though - below the surface - issues that we have already brought out (human rights issues - military role etc) . Though i'm not sure if those that you mention are the real ones...the Muslim thing, well, it depends on the Turks - it could be an issue or a non-issue - IMO. We'll just have to see...

[bellthecat]

Your words are the joke here, and I'm not referring to the spelling. Ultimately the only criteria for Turkey's EU membership will be economic, and that is why Turkey will not be allowed to join the EU.

 

There is only a fixed ammount of EU money available for development grants and agricultural subsidy. A country like Turkey would take such a big slice of those funds that it would affect all the other parts of Europe. This would have huge implications for the electorial support that many EU politicians have. While their natural instinct is (like the leaders of all empires) to expand - they have (just) enough sense of their own self preservation to know when to stop and say "enough".

 

One further note, however imperfect the Turkish state currently is in relation to European political ideals, Turkey passes far more of those ideals than a country like, say, America, which, with its gross abuses of human rights, use of capital punishment, political control of its judiciary, and its widespread flouting of international laws and treaties, would have no chance of joining, EVER!

 

Steve

[THOTH]

quote:

---

Originally posted by bellthecat:

One further note, however imperfect the Turkish state currently is in relation to European political ideals, Turkey passes far more of those ideals than a country like, say, America, which, with its gross abuses of human rights, use of capital punishment, political control of its judiciary, and its widespread flouting of international laws and treaties, would have no chance of joining, EVER!

 

Steve

LOL - yes I certainly see your point(s)! Wimpy Europeans that you are - seeing the US as such a barbaric place.... LOL - but I think it is a bit of a stretch to claim (if you are) that in fact the US is somehow lesser - in terms of human rights - etc - then Turkey. Of course the US could never meet the homoginized European Union standards - for better or worse - but thats not really the issue is it? It is Turkey's suitability. Sure - the US has some serious proiblems in these areas - and I agree with the critique - but do you really think that ieven in their totality - they are even in the same ballpark as Turkey's abuses?

 

Furthermore there are other issues with Turkey. First - the whole Muslim thing, Secondly - your issue if economic liability - very valid, and third - there is concern that the European nations will lose that ability to control the (influx and settlement of) cheap Turkish labor/immigrants...and what is to be done about this - eh?

[bellthecat]

[gamavor]

The best scenario for Armenia would be to have European neighbor. That doesn't mean that Turkey would ever become European country. One should distinguish between political desires and realities.

Armenian organizations demanding recognition of the Genocide are often used by these same European obstructionists, while the reasons for turkish membership in the union are far more complex and unpleasant to be discussed with the turks.

Europeans do not care about Armenian Genocide and why should they? If someone exterminates tomorrow, lets say Scots in Britain, do you think I would care? Of course NO. I would say, well they are stingy and they probably deserved it.

[MJ]

I wholeheartedly encourage Turkey's entry into EU - Europe deserves it.

 

Please let me know if there is a petition in place and I would sign it immediately.

 

However, could Armenia stay outside the European Union, please? I mean please?

[THOTH]

Steve -

 

While certainly much of your critiscim is valid (and I and many other Americans share these concerns - whether or not it makes CNN or other news...) - a lot of it is also a bit overblown and is very (negatively) one sided - ignoring anything positive...(funny - some of the same comments I have been making concerning some of the critiscm of Turkey by others here). In fact I also have stated my support for Turkey into the EU )(Conceptually) - with reforms of course...and I don't approve of opposition striclty because of race/religion etc and also understand how the Armenian issue and some of these other issues are being used as a convenient excuse by Europeans who are either racist against the Turks or who may fear the economic fallout (and demographic issues) of Turkish entry into the EU.

 

And MJ - I hear you! LOL

[MJ]

Good boy!

[aurguplu]

Domino,

 

my particulars are as they appear here. i have reason to believe (but no evidence to prove) that the turkish government is currently preparing the public to an eventual recognition of the genocide for the following reasons:

 

1. they are losing the geocide denial battle internationally, and don't want to be the last to recognise it.

 

2. they realise that the more turkey opens up, the harder it is to keep turks from getting exposed to unofficial versions of history (so they don't want to see turks chat in armenian forums. what are they gonna do? get the country offline?).

 

3. they are a bit freer from their former fears. they had feared very much that recognition of kurdish identity would lead to eventual breakup of the country, and it isn't (at least for the time being).

 

4. these "sensitive issues" are shackles on the feet of turkey that keep it from advancing and have to be removed if we are to be a full member of the inernational community.

 

5. the cold war and the soviet union are over, and with them a good number of the threats we were facing.

 

6. if problems between turkey and armenia were solved, all regional countries could make a killing out of azeri, kazakh and turkmen oil & gas.

 

so i believe that for these reasons the turkish government is currently easing up on this issue, at least internally. they will of course be the last to leave the official position, but they will allow a number of public figures to speak up on the issue freely to form public opinion.

 

of course, one serious obstacle is our concern that such a recognition will be used by the armenian side to form a basis for land claims. while i believe it doesn't stand much of a chance, we would understandably prefer not to run the risk, for we would rather solve all the problems, and not replace one with another.

 

although i am not a spokesperson for the government or anyone else, and i disagree with many of their positions, i do agree with some of their positions, just like i disagree with a number of your positions but agree with some. i don't make an effort to differ from the government, i happen to differ just in those places where i think they are wrong.

 

by the way, dadrian's "genocide" was translated into turkish some five years ago and is still on sale in istanbul.

 

in sum, yes, i believe we are getting sufficiently democratic to express ourselves. and also, faint heart never won fair lady.

[aurguplu]

hovsep, may i add:

 

1) allow your women to go out of their house on their own, have jobs, elect & be elected to any post (including presidency), have equal say in courts,

 

2) do not stone adulterers, chop off thieves' hands, and the like,

 

3) practise monogamy and cheat on your wife like civilised nations do,

 

4) have more than six courses in your universities (iran),

 

5) have elections and be governed by their results

 

6) abolish death penalty.

 

etc. etc.

[Guest Fadi]

Ali, you are really disconnected from reality, Turkey just recently build an Institute of Armenian research, why was this build ? To prepare the public ? As for Dadrians book, lets see the mascarade…

 

It started like this, about 7 years ago.(Concerning Dadrians book)

 

(NCH) #2

 

In the spring of 1995 the book `Genocide as a Question of National and International Law: The 1915 Armenian Event and its Consequences', written by US historian Vahakn Dadrian, was banned. The publisher of the Turkish translation of this book, Ayse Zarakolu, already serving a two-year prison sentence for publishing `The Armenian Taboo', another book on the Armenian genocide by French historian Yves Ternon, faced prosecution for separatist propaganda. On 29 December 1995 she was acquitted for this book (but charges for other books were upheld).

[source: IOC 4/95: 188; 6/95: 186, 2/96: 104.]

 

Has Turkey permitted the book to be sold ? Don’t know, but still it was banned… what happened later ? well, in the end of 2000, more then 4 years later, the Court of appeal sent its four years old decision.

 

Hurriyet 20.11.00

 

COURT OF APPEALS DECISION ON THE SO-CALLED ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

 

The Court of Appeals sent its four year old decision on the so-called Armenian genocide, stating that no genocide occurred only losses due to migration, to the Office of the Prime Minister. The Court of Appeals decided that Armenian writer Vhakn N. Dadrian's book, titled "Genocide as a Problem related to National and International Law" distorted historical facts. The decision states that it was the Armenians who carried out genocide and terror in the Ottoman Empire. (…)

 

“The government also uses these methods to ban the works of foreign scientists, as in the case of French scientist Eve Termond who wrote about the Armenian genocide and whose work was published by Zarakolu's company. Because foreign authors usually reside outside of Turkey, instead of charging the author, the government charges the publisher whom it accuses of writing the book.[47] Ayse Zarakolu was also fined and sentenced to two years in prison for publishing a book by Professor Dadrian, a mathematician, philosopher, sociologist, and recipient of a Guggenheim grant to conduct research on genocide.”

 

From: Scientists Clash with the State in Turkey: Four Cases Studies

American association for the Advancement of Science

 

Very surprising way to prepare a population. Isn’t it ?

[aurguplu]

i have a few things to say on this turkey-eu thing.

 

i have first hand info from people who have been in talks with the eu (and before that, ec) since the late 1950s (i.e. almost immediately after it was founded).

 

they think - after having invested a lifetime in it - that eu will not take turkey as long as they can help it. and the reason for it is and always will be cultural: islam-christianity.

 

human rights, economics, demography, size, geographical location. all of these might be valid to some extent, but they are not insuperable, and turkey is improving. after all, right now both our economy and our human rights record are less bad than when spain and greece had applied in the late 1970s, for instance. economics? we have thrown the incompentent ****s out of office and - hopefully - politics for good. demographics? our birth rate is falling faster than we had predicted just ten years ago (and that's fast)! size? look and france, spain, reunited germany, poland. geographical location? cyprus?

 

no. the real reason is simply religion. and i tell you two other countries that won't make it into the eu: the bosnian-croat federation and albania. the first is either going to disintegrate and the relevant parts going to join croatia and serbia respectively, leaving an amorphous muslim entity which will then be mopped up again, and the second is most likely going to stay out of the eu on account of its 70% muslim population.

 

the eu is a christian club, and will never really change. i cannot really blame them for it. after all they have been defining themselves for five centuries as "that which had not fallen into turkish hands". you can't expect them to change that attitude overnight.

 

also, europe is not just a present and a future: it is also a past and a culture, a civilisation. we played little if any positive role in that civilisation. our role was most prominent when european mothers scared disciplined their kids saying "i'll give you to the turk".

 

we played a central and positive role in history, but we did so in islam. not in christendom. we really belong there, and there we can have the opportunity to be what germany is to europe. if only the other muslims were a bit more sensible...

 

as i say. i shall not be particularly offended if turkey never makes it into the eu. i would rather though that the eu made it clear to us beyond doubt: no muslims in europe. this way we would at least be heading toward destinations we can realistically reach.

[aurguplu]

Domino,

 

the book's on sale in istanbul.

[Arpa]

Why do Armenians talk 999 times more about Turks and Turkey, 1000 times more about Jews and Israel?

Is this what is known as "ostrichism"? Don't we have anything to talk about? Do we know any armeniana? Is there an armeniana?

Is it too embarassing to talk about ourselves? Sure! It will probably last two minutes.

As to Turkey's EU membership. Why are we so keen about it? Do we think that it will teach them to respect human rights and repent? How much good has being the US' "staunchest ally" done? How much good has being the biggest US' welfare state done?

My ardent wish is, I have said this, albeit in another context, that Turks do actually join the EU, not only diplomatically and economically but phisically, i.e. continue their invasion of Vienna and this time stay there. It seems the Europeans like the Turks, there may be some pervert sexual connotation here. As is there are enough Turks in Germany and other European countries, a few more will not hurt. Ouch!!! On one condition though, that they go west of the Dardanelles with their lock, stock and barrel, take their mosques and minarets with them, the Europeans may like it, they are long, big and cylindrical in shape, they may like to stuff them up their... noses(?),not to forget their hordes, to never come back.

We have enjoyed "Turkish love" for too long let the Europeans enjoy some for a change. BTW, this may give the Greeks and the Byzantians a taste of their own medicine since they devastated Armenia over and over while the latter was seiged by the hordes and could little afford to defend themselves from their so-called "coreligionistic allies".

Go to Europe, got to ... Jehenem beri sen daha oete. Is hell too far or too hot?

PS. Don't forget too also take with you the Kurds and the other pests, you may need their services to loot your neighbors and act as your murderous executioners, thereby some day you may blame them for the murder of 1,500,000,000 Europeans. Furhter, we now know that the earth is speherical, if you keep moving far enough west you may end up in your ancestral lands in the east.

 

Go to Europe, go to hell! Good riddance!!

[Twilight Bark]

It would be wonderful if Turkey changes enough to qualify for entry into the EU. I wholeheartedly support the idea without any facetiousness. However, I am disgusted by the idea that forceful penetration into the EU would do good to anyone. Instead of becoming a catalyst for positive cultural change, a premature entry would "prove" (for the benefit of the Orwellian elite in Turkey) that Turkey has been alright, they were right, and now they are taking their rightful place, and a bright new future awaits, and history must now be buried and left to history buffs. And I would agree with the last sentiment only after Turkish culture changes sufficiently. It clearly has not. Yet.

 

As for the "muslim" excuse. While it is certainly in the minds of many a conservative folk in the EU, it is definitely not a determining factor. The real reasons are twofold: Culture and Size. The relevant issue is not the religious difference per se, but the cultural incompatibility. If Turkish society were to become a liberal-minded, enlightened one with a culture of governance that matches it, EU would simply not be able to say "No", even if it wanted to. Let's think about why they would want to say no. Perhaps a significant minority of the reluctant would like to say no on religious grounds, but Christianity has been in a sharp decline all over Europe. Poland is the only major Euopean country that rivals the US in religious fervor. The rest of the reluctant would like to say no simply on the grounds that Turks are ethnically too different (looks and acts too differently) from the western and northern Europeans, and (this is important, and brings us to the second factor, namely size) is too populuous. The "innocent" cultural idiosyncracies would be easily overlooked if the associated population were not so huge. The "native" population of EU is poised to shrink significantly in the course of this century, possibly to something less than 200 million, while Turkish population would probably not stabilize before hitting the 100 million mark. Turkey would easily be the largest country in the union, essentially starting to run the show. Don't expect its premature entry to be acceptable. Europeans have their faults, but they are not imbeciles.

 

Turkey needs to be significantly more "europeanized" before it hopes to be welcomed into the Union. And that has little to do with religion per se, although such a process would inevitably and fundamentally change both the face of the (already somewhat distinct) Turkish variety of Islam, as well as its significance in Turkish society. In any case, it is a process that should not be forced, but allowed to take its course.

 

As a sidenote, the absurdity of an Albanian entry into the EU stems from the endemic crime, corruption, and incompetence; not the majority religion. It is small enough not to change the face of the EU by composition, but has way too many crooks. Again, letting them loose on the EU population without the prerequisite evolution in the Albanian society would take a complete suspension of rationality on the part of EU.

 

Before being so indignant, Turks should perhaps ask themselves this: who would want to join a union of naive imbeciles that are devoid of an instinct for self-preservation?

[Twilight Bark]

Because they are important to us, regardless of how much we may dislike that fact.

 

Probably because many Armenians are indignant at the lack of Jewish friendship, to put it mildly. The whole thing is silly, but then we do seem to have more than our share of the silly, don't we?

 

Yes. It appears so. Thanks for expressing a suspicion that I have had for some time.

[aurguplu]

Originally posted by Twilight Bark:

[QB]It would be wonderful if Turkey changes enough to qualify for entry into the EU. I wholeheartedly support the idea without any facetiousness.

 

a turkish jaw drops in amazement...

 

However, I am disgusted by the idea that forceful penetration into the EU would do good to anyone.

 

no need to worry there. turks have neither the power nor the inclination to conquer anything anymore, besides, europeans are not weak, either. it's over.

 

Instead of becoming a catalyst for positive cultural change, a premature entry would "prove" (for the benefit of the Orwellian elite in Turkey) that Turkey has been alright, they were right, and now they are taking their rightful place, and a bright new future awaits, and history must now be buried and left to history buffs.

 

the eu would not take such a country.

 

And I would agree with the last sentiment only after Turkish culture changes sufficiently. It clearly has not. Yet.

 

i agree.

 

As for the "muslim" excuse. While it is certainly in the minds of many a conservative folk in the EU, it is definitely not a determining factor.

 

i doubt it.

 

The real reasons are twofold: Culture and Size. The relevant issue is not the religious difference per se, but the cultural incompatibility.

 

i agree, but do not forget that culture encompasses a number of religious issues as well. for instance, islam has a sacrificial feast where loads of animals are slaughtered annually, and in public. the westernised turks are increasingly vocal in their expression of their dislike of the episode, at least the way it is being done (in public). this is an example of a cultural incompatibility which has religious roots.

 

If Turkish society were to become a liberal-minded, enlightened one with a culture of governance that matches it, EU would simply not be able to say "No", even if it wanted to.

 

they would be able to do so as long as 50% of total turkish exports are to eu: we are dependent on them because they are the biggest market.

 

Let's think about why they would want to say no. Perhaps a significant minority of the reluctant would like to say no on religious grounds, but Christianity has been in a sharp decline all over Europe. Poland is the only major Euopean country that rivals the US in religious fervor. The rest of the reluctant would like to say no simply on the grounds that Turks are ethnically too different (looks and acts too differently) from the western and northern Europeans, and (this is important, and brings us to the second factor, namely size) is too populuous. The "innocent" cultural idiosyncracies would be easily overlooked if the associated population were not so huge. The "native" population of EU is poised to shrink significantly in the course of this century, possibly to something less than 200 million, while Turkish population would probably not stabilize before hitting the 100 million mark. Turkey would easily be the largest country in the union, essentially starting to run the show. Don't expect its premature entry to be acceptable. Europeans have their faults, but they are not imbeciles.

 

i agree with the size issue. also, size means vote.

 

Turkey needs to be significantly more "europeanized" before it hopes to be welcomed into the Union. And that has little to do with religion per se, although such a process would inevitably and fundamentally change both the face of the (already somewhat distinct) Turkish variety of Islam, as well as its significance in Turkish society. In any case, it is a process that should not be forced, but allowed to take its course.

 

As a sidenote, the absurdity of an Albanian entry into the EU stems from the endemic crime, corruption, and incompetence; not the majority religion. It is small enough not to change the face of the EU by composition, but has way too many crooks. Again, letting them loose on the EU population without the prerequisite evolution in the Albanian society would take a complete suspension of rationality on the part of EU.

 

yes. i had overlooked that. true.

 

Before being so indignant, Turks should perhaps ask themselves this: who would want to join a union of naive imbeciles that are devoid of an instinct for self-preservation?

 

turks are not indignant. they are fully aware of the problems and understand that they are real and not made up. if i were a european, i would probably vote against turkey in the short run and would push for making a special arrangement with the country so that turkey would be satisfied economically (eu funds, investment etc), and eu would be preserved (no millions of jobless turks on the eu job market). such a thing, if persuasively argued, could be a better solution.

 

and i repeat that if the arabs and persians were in a less disastrous shape, we could opt to do something with them, some sort of islamic union or whatever, where we would be a natural big guy. but these guys are still pretty hopeless. what a pity.

[Twilight Bark]

Why?

The fact that I am often irritated by your realpolitik talk and (perhaps unintended) lack of sincerity does not mean that I wish the Turks ill. To the contrary, my position on this issue is entirely consistent with the rest of my positions.

 

I was referring to something like a "forced marriage". As for the desire to conquer, I have to disagree. Just read the colorful sheets of cellulose that pass as "newspaper" in Turkey. A soccer team doesn't just win a game in a european city, they "conquer" it. A succesful concert by a Turkish singer in a foreign city is nothing short of a "conquest". The culture of conquest is still very much embedded right under the surface.

And the inclination to absorb, assimilate and grow bigger as a desirable end in itself is very much alive in the Turkish culture. In fact, that facet has been emphasized and nurtured by the Republic since its foundation.