Turkey Seeks French Approval

[Vigil]

Turkey to push EU bid in France

By Jonny Dymond

BBC Istanbul correspondent

 

 

Turkey's bid to join the European Union will be high on the agenda when Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan arrives in France on Monday.

In the minds of many in Turkey, there is little doubt that France is the member state which is most openly hostile to Turkey's membership bid.

 

Some senior French politicians have publicly opposed Turkey's membership.

 

But Istanbul hopes to get assurance from the French that its bid will be judged on the right criteria.

 

In Turkey, few have forgotten the words of former French president and architect of the EU constitution Valery Giscard d'Estaing.

 

He said bluntly that Turkey was not European and that if it joined the EU, it would be the end of the union.

 

No French politician in office has been so openly hostile to Turkey's bid. But the concern is that Mr Giscard d'Estaing voices publicly what many in France believe privately.

 

What Turkey wants from the visit is pretty plain - an assurance from the French government that its bid will be judged on the so-called Copenhagen criteria of political openness and accountability, rather than on the rights or wrongs of admitting a large, poor, Muslim state into the union.

 

Analysts here believe that the visit would not have been organised had France not been prepared to make encouraging noises.

 

Both in Turkey and across European capitals, the results of the meetings to come will be watched closely indeed.

[Stormig]

Apparently the BBC Istanbul correspondent doesn't know that he is NOT in the capital.

[Vigil]

Allentown Morning Call, PA

July 18 2004

 

 

The transformation of Turkey

The moderate, modern Muslim country, if assimilated into the European

Union, would be an attractive role model for other countries

 

Eli Schwartz

 

 

In Victorian England, there was a common reference to "the

unspeakable Turks." Much has changed. Today, Turkey is an

independent, modernized country of about 70 million inhabitants. It

is a charter member of NATO and is currently knocking on the door for

admission to the European Union.

 

In fact, columnist George F. Will noted last week, it is to this

country's advantage to have Turkey in the EU. Its economy has a long

way to go, in comparison with others in Europe, but it is a nation

that is democratic, secular -- and Muslim.

 

Turkey was not alway democratic and secular, of course, and I believe

that its story is helpful to us today, especially in light of

President Bush's dream of seeing democracy spread throughout the

Middle East.

 

The modern history of Turkey starts from the defeat of the Turkish

Ottoman Empire at the end of World War I. In 1920, the victorious

allies sat down to dispose of the Arab territories and carve up Asia

Minor.

 

Of the Arab countries, the French were given a League of Nations

mandate over Lebanon and Syria; the British received mandates for

Mesopotamia (Iraq), Palestine, and some adjoining territories.

Turkey, in Asia Minor, was divided into Italian and French spheres of

influence, an autonomous Kurdish area, a section given to an Armenian

Republic in Causasia, and a Greek enclave starting out from the city

of Smyrna (now Izmir) on the Aegean Sea. A small area encompassing

the city of Constantinople and an oval on the Asiatic side enclosing

the sea of Marmora and the straits to the Black Sea was left to the

Sultan of Turkey. The whole was endorsed by the Treaty of Sevres,

signed by the Sultan in Constantinople.

 

In the meantime, a nationalist reform party lead by Mustafa Kemal

(later to become Kemal Ataturk) coalesced around the city of Ankara

in central Turkey. In 1920, the dissident assembly declared Turkey a

republic, and an army formed around Mustafa Kemal launched a series

of attacks on the Kurds, the Armenians, and on the Greek army

occupying the area coming out of Izmir. The campaigns were undeniably

victorious, marred by internecine warfare and by what is now

sardonically called "ethnic cleansing"; much of this has never been

clearly expiated to this day.

 

Suffice it to say, the war ended with the victorious Turkish Army

taking Smyrna in 1922. The abortive Sevres treaty was dropped and the

new treaty of Lausanne in 1923 assigned to the new republic of

Turkey, the territory it currently holds in Asia Minor, and in

Europe, the cosmopolitan city of Constantinople (now Istanbul) and

the strategic straits between the Mediterranean and the Black Sea.

 

No one reigns completely alone, but the foundation of modern Turkey

rests with Mustafa Kemal, given the honorific name Kemal Ataturk

(Noble Father of the Turks), who as president ruled with a hard hand

from 1923 until his death in 1938. Kemal's main goal was to wrest

Turkey into the modern world.

 

One by one, the edicts came down. The Sultan and his family were

exiled, the Caliphate was abolished, the Sharia, Islamic law, was

replaced by the Swiss Code as the basic law of the state, and the

Italian Penal Code and the German Commerce Code were adopted. This

essentially made Turkey a secular state.

 

Kemal made the wearing of the fez (traditional male headdress)

illegal, and he discouraged the wearing of the female head scarf. The

Islamic clergy were paid a stipend by the government, but the weekly

sermon was set by the state. The call to prayer was changed from

Arabic to Turkish.

 

Perhaps Kemal's most revolutionary move was to enforce a change from

the Arabic script to the Latin alphabet. All the citizens from six to

40 years old were made to attend school to learn the new letters.

After four years, it was made illegal to use the old Arabic script. A

consistent increase in literacy followed.

 

There was a massive importation of typewriters and, under the law of

unintended consequences, the increased demand for stenographers led

to the increased employment of women and helped in the emancipation

of Turkish womanhood.

 

Even those quite critical of his methods acknowledge that Ataturk

left a legacy that has served as an obstacle to the rise of

anti-Western Islamists in Turkey.

 

Kemal Ataturk succeeded in modernizing Turkey, whereas operating at

the Eastern end of the Golden Crescent, the Pahlavi family (the

Shahs) failed in the avowed task of modernizing Iran.

 

Now, 66 years after Kemal Ataturk's death, comes perhaps the final

test of the Turkish transition. In December of this year, the Turks

hope to start negotiations on the entry to the European Union. Many

questions arise.

 

Turkey is a poor country. It is not an undeveloped country, but it

ranks in the bottom rung of the class of developed countries. The per

capita GDP is about one third of the average for the EU. On the other

hand, the recent real growth rate of 4 percent to 6 percent per annum

exceeds that of the EU, and a recent report by The Economist magazine

shows Turkey with an astounding increase of 15 percent in the last

quarter in manufacturing and mining output, well above any other

country listed.

 

Trade with the European Union has been growing; since 1996; the

amount of exports to the EU has more than doubled from $10 billion to

$25 billion and imports have gone from $20 billion to $32 billion.

One third of new television sets sold in the EU last year came from

Turkey.

 

The inflation rate which had been running at a double digit rate for

35 years finally fell to a single digit level this February. The

government deficit of 10 percent of the GDP far exceeds the EU target

of 3 percent. Be that as it may, the stated economic criteria for

admission to the European Union is not perfection but the existence

of a "functioning market economy."

 

Some political and social sticking points remain. The average

literacy rate is 87 percent with a significantly higher rate of 94

percent for males as against only 88 percent for females. However,

elementary school education is now compulsory for children of both

sexes. Average life expectancy at birth of 72 years is only slightly

below the developed world average, but the rate of 42 infant deaths

per 1,000 live births is shamefully high.

 

Of course, the main problem is the unrest and unease among the

minority Kurds, who constitute 20 percent of the population. The

current administration has eased relations with the Kurds, allowing

the public use of the Kurdish language and the development of Kurdish

culture. At any rate, Turkey would not be the sole EU member with a

minority problem; Spain has the Basques, Slovakia has the Gypsies,

and Great Britain has the IRA of Northern Ireland. The social,

political criteria for entrance to the EU is phrased as a "union of

values."

 

>From my readings and experience of visiting the Middle East and

Turkey, I believe the admission of Turkey to the European Union would

be a worthwhile accomplishment. Certainly, it would help the Turkish

economy. But perhaps, more importantly, the successful assimilation

of a moderate, modern Muslim country into a vital democratic,

economic society would provide an attractive role model for other

countries to follow.

 

Eli Schwartz of Allentown is professor emeritus of business and

economics at Lehigh University in Bethlehem.

[Vigil]

I just find a few aspects of the above articles mind boggling:

 

1) I find the fact that "Turkey is a poor country" a sufficient reason to not accept it in the EU. How is the EU going to benefit economically from this venture when in fact Turkey will just become another mouth to feed? The answer is that the EU will not benefit from this venture and that is the bottom line, which is why France opposes the entire venture.

 

It is Easy for Turkey the whore to whore it self out to highest bidder, but EU should make sure it does not come with any STDs that may impact the growth of EU later on. For instance what will the EU do when the Kurds want to form their own nation? What will EU do when the Armenian Genocide is brought to the international court? Will the EU pay restitutions on behalf of Turkey? Will The EU give up land on behalf of Turkey?

 

2) What I find strange is how a Jewish-American writer has the audacity to comment on the happenings in Europe when in fact America will never annex Mexico as its next state.

 

I also find it strange how she labels the "ethnic cleansings" as "war" related with the following statement:

 

The campaigns were undeniably victorious, marred by internecine warfare and by what is now sardonically called "ethnic cleansing"; much of this has never been

clearly expiated to this day.

 

3) The writer understates the Turkey's lack of modernization when she states it "ranks in the bottom rung of the class of developed countries". It ranks almost 10 ranks below Armenia, which does not even have half the resources that Turkey does, and is almost another 70 ranks below the most underdeveloped EU country.

 

4) Last time I checked a economics book you would need the working class to spend money in order for the economy to grow via increases in consumption, which is why the fact that the "per capita GDP is about one third of the average for the EU" will become a obstacle for the EU. How much foreign investment will the international welfare case need in order to increase the "per capita GDP"?

 

5) This should send a signal to you Jew loving Armenians that do always seem to ignore articles like this when in fact 99.9% of the time articles that support Turkey are written by Americans of Jewish descent. I do not find it a coincidence that this "Pro Turkey" article has been written by a Jew.

Edited July 19, 2004 by Vigil

[Vigil]

sardonic \ sar-da-nik \ adj: disdainfully or skeptically humorous: derisively mocking syn ironic, satiric, sarcastic Edited July 19, 2004 by Vigil

[ED]

Vigil cut your puppy play and behave accordingly, edit your post, enough of your childish presentations of your arguments, what would it take for you to understand you can’t use that kind of fonts? <_<

 

now dont test my patiants I have none to spare in this heat edit it!!

[Armat]

Ed,please I actually learned a new word Sar-dan-nik

[Vigil]

Ed,please  I actually learned a new word  Sar-dan-nik

 

Armat are you mocking me? Yes, you are mocking me, which means then that you disagree with my comments, right? Right, now, the question I want to ask you, Armat, what in my post is "inaccurate" by you’re humble standards?

 

Is the writer educated? Yes, the writer is a "professor emeritus of business and economics at Lehigh University in Bethlehem".

 

Is the writer supporting Turkey's bid to join the European Union(EU)? Yes, the writer is supporting Turkey's bid to join the EU.

 

Is Turkey a critique of the geopolitical interests of Armenia and Armenians? Yes, Turkey is a geopolitical critique of Armenia and Armenians.

 

Is Israel supporting Turkey in its attempt to ostracize Armenia and Armenians on the world stage? Yes, Israel supports Turkey in its attempt to ostracize Armenia and Armenians on the world stage.

 

Is Israel a Jewish state? Yes, Israel is a Jewish state.

 

Is the Jewish lobby supporting Turkey on the world stage? Yes, the Jewish lobby is supporting Turkey on the world stage.

 

What is the definition of a lobby? The definition of lobby is "a group of persons engaging in lobbying".

 

What is lobbying? Lobbying is the act of influencing public officials and legislation.

 

Is the writer trying to influence public officials and legislation? Yes, the writer is trying to influence public officials and legislation.

 

Is the writer Jewish? Yes, the writer is Jewish.

 

Can we assume then that the writer is a member or participates in the actions of the Jewish lobby? Yes, we can assume that the writer is a member or participates in the actions of the Jewish lobby because she is a Jew trying to influence public officials and legislation.

 

Would the writer be oblivious of the fact that Armenians are fighting for the recognition of the Armenian Genocide internationally? No, the writer could not be oblivious to this "fact" because in order for Turkey to join the EU it must reconcile and stabilize its relationship with Armenia and it's Diaspora. Furthermore, it must promote "westernization" by giving more liberties to minorities, which means actually considering them citizens. Turkey first needs to resolve its situation with the Kurds and Armenians before the European Union can possibly take its demands to join seriously.

 

Does the writers argument adequately ease France's reluctance to accept Turkey into the EU? No, it does not ease France's reluctance to accept Turkey into the EU because you can not base a decision of this magnitude on the economic "growth rate" of one year, while at the same time ignoring and labeling the historic and social actions of Turkey as "war" related. Turkey is a poor country and to ignore this fact and let Turkey join the EU because it is more "democratic" compared to other contemporary Muslim governments does not strengthen the writers argument.

 

Should all Muslim countries join the EU if they become more democratic? No, of course not, this is why the entire notion of rewarding Turkey for being democratic is ludicrous.

 

Before I begin my next line of questioning I would like to define a few words the writer used.

 

Internecine - Deadly.

 

Sardonic - disdainfully or skeptically humorous: derisively mocking syn ironic, satiric, sarcastic

 

Derisive - ridicule

 

Disdain - contempt, scorn

 

Expiate - to give satisfaction for; atone.

 

Atone - to make amends

 

Original statement:

 

The campaigns were undeniably victorious, marred by internecine warfare and by what is now sardonically called "ethnic cleansing"; much of this has never been clearly expiated to this day.

 

My emphasis:

 

The campaigns were undeniably victorious, marred by [deadly] warfare and by what is now [mockingly] called "ethnic cleansing"; much of this has never been

clearly [atoned] to this day.

 

Now let me ask you, Armat, in what way is the writer not being "Pro-Turkish"? It is clear from the above statement that she indeed is enforcing the idea set fourth by Turks that the actions of post-war Turkey was due to turmoil in the region, which we all know is a fabrication. I just get upset when a writer places two sides to the atrocities committed by Turks when in fact Turks were the aggressors.

 

Furthermore, the fact that she is a educated Jew makes it even worse because an educated person would never support the actions of Turkey if indeed they did not have their own geopolitical agenda at stake.

 

Please do not state that "well you do not understand her argument" because I understand it very well. She basically supports Turkey's entrance into the EU by labeling Ataturk and his actions as "democratic", while ignoring the fact that Ataturk wanted a Pan-Turkish Empire as much as the Young Turks he replaced.

 

I would recommend you see ophthalmologist if it is not already obvious to you that the Jewish lobby is opposing Armenian geopolitical interests.

Edited July 20, 2004 by Vigil

[Stormig]

I would recommend you see ophthalmologist if it is not already obvious to you that the Jewish lobby is opposing Armenian geopolitical interests.

Wow, what a fancy word for eye-doctor, ophthalmologist. They see better than we do, don't they? I went to the dentist yesterday, would that still serve the purpose?

[Stormig]

BTW, I don't have to visit an ophthalmologist to see you wrote the definition for "internecine" out of your head:

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=internecine

 

Of or relating to struggle within a nation, organization, or group.

Mutually destructive; ruinous or fatal to both sides.

Characterized by bloodshed or carnage. 

[Vigil]

Wow, what a fancy word for eye-doctor, ophthalmologist. They see better than we do, don't they? I went to the dentist yesterday, would that still serve the purpose?

 

What is you’re problem? Why do you keep “camping” my posts? If you disagree with what I have to say then by all means list reasons why you disagree, but do not post asinine comments to discredit me because all you are doing is making yourself look like an ass.

 

I fail to understand why you and Armat can ridicule me, but I get busted for using "large fonts"? If you are going to ridicule and ultimately disagree with my opinions at least have the decency to list the reasons why you disagree or else do not comment at all.

 

Armat can attack my creditability by replying with comments like "Ed, please I actually learned a new word Sar-dan-nik", while I get busted for politely commenting on his failure to see our rivals for what they are?

 

I get ostracized for replying to another posters criticism. The bureaucracy has reached a new level on this forum.

Edited July 20, 2004 by Vigil

[Vigil]

BTW, I don't have to visit an ophthalmologist to see you wrote the definition for "internecine" out of your head

 

Defining internecine as "deadly", which is what I defined it as, is about the same definition you "Googled". Do you want me to congratulate you on you’re fine dictionary talents? I ask what is you’re point because it is not like my "argument" becomes any less credible?

 

Again we go back to the writers comment:

 

"The campaigns were undeniably victorious, marred by internecine warfare and by what is now sardonically called "ethnic cleansing"; much of this has never been clearly expiated to this day."

 

If we use the definitions you provided my argument will still hold. It is not like I am taking her definition or basic argument out of context. She is justifying the actions of Kamal Ataturk and furthermore, is ignoring the fact that Turkey does not just face economic problems.

 

I just find it offensive that she places two sides to the argument. France will not accept Turkey into the European Union if Turkey does not take steps towards actually "modernizing". I do not mean just signing a few legislations or condemning the actions of Israel to save face, but rather actually showing an initiative to change.

[Stormig]

No, Vigil, internecine in this context implies civil war, not simply atrocities. I don't have to Google or Dictionary.com to see the "inter-" in there.

Don't be so hard on yourself. I'm sure Armat doesn't think as badly of you as you think. Perhaps it is time you dropped your sensationalism, at the very least for your own good, including going so far as to accuse Turkey of not recognising minorities as citizens.

[Nakharar]

The biggest delusion that Turkey got itself into (beside their "so-called" genocide fancy of course) is their pathetic belief in the EU membership. Leaving aside questions of identity, which they do not fulfill as well. There is a dictum by Christopher Wren in St. Paul's Cathedral which describes their situation none too ably as this: "Si Monumentum Requiris, Circumspice". If you seek my monument, look around. If they still cannot comprehend why they are so hopelessly unsuitable to enter the EU, they should look around some more.

Should we have empathy or empity towards them?

[Armat]

Armat are you mocking me? Yes, you are mocking me, which means then that you disagree with my comments, right? Right, now, the question I want to ask you, Armat, what in my post is "inaccurate" by you’re humble standards?

 

No,Vigil I was not mocking you just joking.I lost my interest in the article after few sentences...

I think Turkey as a EU member may be more beneficial for Armenia.I don't understand why if the Turks want to progress that's including AG issues we mostly diaspora Armenians must fight back blindly without giving any solid reasons for against Turkey's EU membership.As for Jews?Old theme...

PS You read too much into things unsaid. Just relax otherwise you're cool.

Edited July 20, 2004 by Armat

[Vigil]

No, Vigil, internecine in this context implies civil war, not simply atrocities. I don't have to Google or Dictionary.com to see the "inter-" in there.

 

I apologize for the "ass" that I committed, but other then that my argument still holds. Why is a Jewish writer labeling the events a "civil war"? This in no way could be a coincidence or mistake on the part of the writer, which means that the Jewish community's geopolitical motives coincide with that of Turkey.

 

Turkey as a EU member may be more beneficial for Armenia.

 

Will it be beneficial in that it will regulate Turkey's regional influence? Yes, once Turkey is in the EU it must abide by the EU's rules and regulations, but in no way will Turkey help Armenia enter the EU before Azerbaijan. In fact we can assume its own interests in the EU will rival that of Armenia, which means in the long run you will indeed see Turkey gain influence over Armenia due the fact that it will have the most number of votes in the EU.

 

This in time becomes a very bad scenario for Armenia and the Diaspora because Turkey can directly influence the direction of Armenia through the EU. For instance Armenia will be forced into making decisions that will conflict with that of the Diaspora, eventually, this will lead into the death of the Diaspora as a resource Armenia could potentially use for its own geopolitically interests.

Edited July 20, 2004 by Vigil

[Armat]

Will it be beneficial in that it will regulate Turkey's regional influence? Yes, once Turkey is in the EU it must abide by the EU's rules and regulations, but in no way will Turkey help Armenia enter the EU before Azerbaijan. In fact we can assume its own interests in the EU will rival that of Armenia, which means in the long run you will indeed see Turkey gain influence over Armenia due the fact that it will have the most number of votes in the EU.

I would venture out that Armenia would become EU member before Turkey does in fifteen years proximately. EU views Armenia as a European country unlike Turkey and its relative small size posses no real obsticle. EU is not prepared to except Turkey’s membership yet perhaps never. A country, which has serious human rights record, maintains a blockade on Armenia, cypress issues along with 70 million population which predominantly are poor are real issues including cultural differences which may become more important.

Below article may be relevant.

 

http://www.armeniandiaspora.com/archive/4360.html

[MartyRoss]

My post in Event >> Demonstration of Tuesday july 20th in Paris, against THIS Turkey in UE