Turkey In The Eu?

DominO123 · October 7, 2004

Armen jan. I dont think all of us live with the "victim syndroms". this is more a matter of honor for me, for example. I dont consider myself a victim and yet I will do anything in my power (design posters for example, raise awareness among those who dont know) to have it recognized by as many countries as possible. Yes, great unjustice was done to us, yet we survived and builded. So we are not victims. We just want justice so we can light a candle for 1.5 million souls which perished under the turkish knife. That's how I see it at least.

style_images/master/snapback.png

I agree, I don't feel a victim either, I feel I'm the predator and the denialist Turk the victim.

Edited October 7, 2004 by Fadix

gamavor · October 7, 2004

Now that Turkey has a chance to join Europe, (soon maybe after 20 years) I would suggest to keep that damn border close, because soon we gonna have border with Turkope (Turkey+Europe).

DominO123 · October 7, 2004

Now that Turkey has a chance to join Europe, (soon maybe after 20 years) I would suggest to keep that damn border close, because soon we gonna have border with Turkope (Turkey+Europe).

style_images/master/snapback.png

I think, you mean Amurope(America + Turkey + Europe), the turkey sandwiched between those two ready to be eaten.

Edited October 7, 2004 by Fadix

Armen · October 7, 2004

Armen jan. I dont think all of us live with the "victim syndroms". this is more a matter of honor for me, for example. I dont consider myself a victim and yet I will do anything in my power (design posters for example, raise awareness among those who dont know) to have it recognized by as many countries as possible. Yes, great unjustice was done to us, yet we survived and builded. So we are not victims. We just want justice so we can light a candle for 1.5 million souls which perished under the turkish knife. That's how I see it at least.

style_images/master/snapback.png

All of us do, me included. If we show a photo of our ancestor's death taken by Armin Vagner to a British lord in the European Parliament and ask him to recognize the Genocide, it is already a "victim mentality". There is very little justice in this phisical world and lot of place for struggle.

gamavor · October 7, 2004

You know what is funny? After some time someone might say "I'm European" and that would mean also a Turk!

Are we Europeans? Hell, NO!!! :beer:

Boghos · October 7, 2004

Europe is at a crossroad now. Either the reforms will move ahead (labour, pension, among others) or in a decade or so it will be a much poorer place. In that case the Turks will never be accepted. If it does succeed in reforming, they will want Turkey even less. Edited October 18, 2004 by Boghos

Arpa · October 18, 2004

Take a look at this letter from the site below. Newsweek Oct. 18, 2004

Who is David Phillips and what is the Council on Foreign Relations?

Count the number of times he mentions "Armenia(n)".

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6212785/site/newsweek/

Turkey and the EU

Fareed Zakaria is quite right: though Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has made huge progress implementing reforms to meet the European Union's admission criteria, Turkey's prospects were seriously undermined by his recent efforts to make adultery a criminal offense ("How Not to Win Muslim Allies," Sept. 27). The adultery law could not have come at a worse time. Confirming suspicions that Turkey is outside Europe's cultural mainstream, the botched legislation is already being used by European leaders who argue against Turkey's membership in the EU. Erdogan needs a bold move to rescue Turkey's candidacy. To this end, Turkey should open its border with Armenia. Not only would normalizing travel and trade have an impact in Europe, where many countries sympathize with Armenians, but opening the border is also in Turkey's interest. It would stimulate up to $1 billion in trade primarily benefiting impoverish-ed provinces in the northeast of Turkey. Improving relations between Turkey and Armenia is not a formal condition for EU membership. However, Erdogan can restore confidence by trumping narrow parochial interests that hold back Turkey's social, economic and political progress.

David L. Phillips, Senior Fellow

Council on Foreign Relations

New York, N.Y.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

Arpa · October 21, 2004

As far as I am concerned, not only Turkey can and should join the EU they should get the hell out of Anatolia and move into the heart of Europe, be it Germany or else. They can even move to America as there seem to be many admirers of Ataturk here as well.
That was their initial intention in the first place anyway when when went knocking at the gates of Vienna. Having failed at that they retreated back to OUR LANDS. Now it may be time that they resume their conquest of Europe and leave us alone. Besides, the Europeans seem to be enamored with them anyway. If they only knew what designs the Turk has for them.

style_images/master/snapback.png

Hey Gams, will you stop imitating and plagiarizing me!!

:)

Please don't... stop!

Forgive me for moving this from another thread.

I pray day and night for Turks to become Europeans! I wish they conquered Vienna, London and Paris. I wish Turks intermarry with Europeans! I wish they finally get out of our Lands, so that we can have again our exclusive club called Armenia, from Caspian to Black, and from Black to Mediterranean!

style_images/master/snapback.png

We must not only NOT try and hinder their joining the EU, we must in fact promote it for the reasons above and more. Hopefully history will repeat itself and we will witness the fate of the Armenian during the 18th and 19th centuries revisit them. It was during that time when the Ottoman Empire had no internal and external boundaries and many desperate and or ambitious Armenians, specially our intellentsia felt free to move mostly westward to Istanbul and beyond. The rest is (sad and tragic)"history" as the adage goes.

Hopefully it will be repeated, once the borders are taken down, that their "desperate" and "ambitious" be peasant or poet will move westward al the way to Vienna, Paris, Berlin and beyond vacating our lands and exposing the wretched left behind as vulnerableand "headless" (literally??) as we were during those critical times. When that happens all we have to do is move in and occu[y the vacant fields and buildings, perhaps without even firing a shot.

As far as I am concerned they can move (far)east(Australia), west(Paris), north(the Arctic) or south(Zimbabwe) as long as they get the hell out of our home(land).

Am I the legendary Pollyanna!!??

Turkey for the EU!

The sooner the better!

Edited October 21, 2004 by Arpa

nairi · October 21, 2004

Btw, not sure if this has been posted on the forum or not yet, but it's the report of the EC:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/report_2004/

You can download it PDF format in all EU languages.

Armen · November 17, 2004

The Economist

November 11, 2004

Human rights in Turkey

Haunted by the past

A human-rights commission embarrasses the government

ANKARA - "HAPPY is he who calls himself a Turk!" That breezy slogan,

emblazoned on mountainsides and offices from the Aegean to the

Euphrates, was devised by Kemal Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey,

as he set about forging a fresh identity for his people. The idea was

that former subjects of the Ottoman empire - whose native language might

be Arabic, Albanian or Kurdish-would find a new togetherness as citizens

of a unitary republic. And in case people hesitated to embrace the joys

of Turkishness, there were harsh penalties for those who asserted any

other sort of identity.

For most of the past 80 years, these principles have been sacrosanct.

But if Turkey is to have any hope of joining the European Union, some

taboo topics of history, identity and language must be discussed openly,

without fear of prosecution. In a burst of zeal three years ago, the

government-led by former Islamists-set up a panel to take a broad look

at questions of human rights and identity, and to suggest how things

could be improved. But Turkey's masters got more than they expected. The

board's report, released this month, said things that were almost

unsayable, triggering a sharp backlash.

For example, the report implies that if the Lausanne treaty of 1923-the

basis of the Turkish state and its foreign relations-had been fully

implemented, bloodshed between Turks and Kurds might have been avoided.

To justify this argument, which is explosive in Turkey, however mild it

might seem elsewhere, the report cites article 39 of the treaty, which

allows Turkish nationals to use "any language they wish in commerce, in

public and private meetings and all types of press and publication."

It also says that articles which supposedly protect non-Muslim

minorities have been read too narrowly: as well as covering Jews,

Armenians and Greeks, these articles should have been applied, for

example, to Syrian Orthodox Christians. More controversially still, it

suggests replacing the term "Turk" with a more inclusive word to cover

all ethnicities and faiths, such as "Turkiyeli"-"of Turkey".

It was more than some Turks could bear. Even as Ibrahim Kaboglu, the

jurist who heads the board, was reading the report at a press

conference, a fellow member snatched it and tore it into shreds. Both Mr

Kaboglu and Baskin Oran, a political scientist who wrote the report,

have been bombarded with threatening phone calls and mail. "Fraternal

blood will be spilled," warned one. Another called for a military coup.

Prosecutors in Ankara are investigating claims that both academics may

have committed treason. Ilker Basbug, a top general, has joined the

fray, saying Turkey's unity should not be tampered with. The government,

frightened by the reaction, has washed its hands of the report and

denied commissioning it.

It is possible, though unlikely, says Husnu Ondul, a human-rights

lawyer, that the two authors may be prosecuted under an article of the

new penal code approved in September, which provides for up to ten

years' jail for those who engage in unspecified "activities" against the

"national interest". What might such activities be? In a footnote, the

law deems "anti-national" anyone who advocates withdrawing Turkish

troops from Cyprus, or terming "genocide" the killing of hundreds of

thousands of Armenians in 1915. If the aim was to stifle discussion of

this second issue, it failed: at a conference in Venice last month,

historians from all countries involved took a broader, more cool-headed

look at the 1915 tragedy than would be possible in Turkey-now or, it

seems, any time soon. And what about the 100,000 Turkish-Cypriots who

voted (vainly) in April for a UN plan that would have removed most

Turkish troops from Cyprus: was that a crime?

gamavor · November 22, 2004

Turkey's Dark Past

By Gamaliel Isaac

FrontPageMagazine.com

November 22, 2004

On November 16, 2004, Frontpage magazine posted an article from the New Europe Review, by Mustafa Akyol, titled "European Muslims and the Quest for the Soul of Islam." In the article Akyol argued that a new more tolerant interpretation of Islam should be constructed and that "A great deal of shariah laws — like killing of apostates, stoning of adulterers, seclusion of women, compulsory prayer, required dress code, punishments for drinking or even possessing alcohol — have simply no basis in the Qur'an." He wrote that Turkey has an Islamic heritage free of anti-Westernism and anti-Semitism and argued that it will benefit the West if Turkey is admitted into the European Union.

Does Turkey have an Islamic Heritage Free of anti-Westernism and anti-Semitism?

The statement of Mr Akyol that Turkey has an Islamic Heritage free of anti-westernism and anti-semitism is inaccurate. We need only look at Turkey’s long history of conquest of Western countries and persecution of conquered westerners.

In the 14th century Turkey conquered Hungary, Bulgaria, Macedonia, and Romania. Turkey was stopped only as it lay seige to Vienna. For hundreds of years thereafter Turks oppressed and engaged in periodic slaughters of their Christian subjects. In his history of Islam, The Sword and The Prophet, Serge Trifkovic wrote about the history of the Turkish oppression of the Armenian Christians as follows:

"The Ottomans lurched from outrage to outrage. Regular slaughters of Armenians in Bayazid (1877), Alashgurd (1879), Sassun (1894), Constantinople (1896), Adana (1909) and Armenia itself (1895-96) claimed a total of two hundred thousand lives, but they were only rehearsals for the genocide of 1915. The slaughter of Christians in Alexandria in 1881 was only a rehearsal for the artificial famine induced by the Turks in 1915-16 that killed over a hundred thousand Maronite Christians in Lebanon and Syria. So imminent and ever-present was the peril, and so fresh the memory of these events in the minds of the non-Moslems, that illiterate Christian mothers dated events as so many years before or after "such and such a massacre." Across the Middle East, the bloodshed of 1915-1922 finally destroyed ancient Christian communities and cultures that had survived since Roman times-groups like the Jacobites (Syrian Orthodox), Nestorians (Iraqi Orthodox), and Chaldaeans (Iraqi Catholic)...

The burning of the Greek city of Smyrna and the massacre and scattering of its three hundred thousand Christian inhabitants is one of the most poignant - if not, after the vast outrages of the 20th century, the bloodiest - crimes in all history. It marked the end of the Greek community in Asia Minor. On the eve of its destruction, Smyrna was a bustling port and commercial center. It was a genuinely civilized, in the old-world sense, place. An American consul-general later remembered a busy social life that included teas, dances, musical afternoons, games of tennis and bridge, and soirees given in the salons of the highly cultured Armenian and Greek bourgeoisie.

Sic gloria transit: sporadic killings of Christians, mostly Armenians, started as soon as the Turks overran it on September 9, 1922. Within days, they escalated to mass slaughter. It did not "get out of hand," however, in the sense of an uncontrolled chaos perpetrated by an uncommanded military rabble. The Turkish military authorities deliberately escalated it. The Greek Orthodox Bishop Chrysostomos remained with his flock. "It is the tradition of the Greek Church and the duty of the priest to stay with his congregation," he replied to those begging him to flee. The Moslem mob fell upon him, uprooted his eyes and, as he was bleeding, dragged him by his beard through the streets of the Turkish quarter, beating and kicking him. Every now and then, when he had the strength to do so, he would raise his right hand and blessed his persecutors. A Turk got so furious at this gesture that he cut off his hand with his sword. He fell to the ground, and was hacked to pieces by the angry mob. The carnage culminated in the burning of Smyrna, which started on September 13 when the Turks put the Armenian quarter to torch and the conflagration engulfed the city. The remaining inhabitants were trapped at the seafront, from which there was no escaping the flames on one side, or Turkish bayonets on the other. This was the end of Christianity in Asia Minor, whose history goes back to events recorded in the New Testament itself."

Marjorie Housepian in her book The Smyrna Affair, quoted a missionary eyewitness who said the Turkish Muslims actually enjoyed massacring the Armenian Christians. He said:

"The slaughter of the Armenians was a joy to the Turks, a massacre was heralded by the blowing of trumpets and concluded by a procession. Accompanied by the prayers of the mullahs and muezzins, who from the minarets implored the blessings of Allah, the slaughter was accomplished in admirable order according to a well arranged plan. The crowd, supplied with arms by the authorities, joined most amicably with the soldiers and the Kurdish Hamidieh on these festive occasions. The Turkish women stimulated their heroes by raising a gutteral shriek of their war cry, the Zilghit, and deafening the hopeless despair of their victims by singing their nuptial songs. A kind of wild cannibal humour seized the crowd...the savage crew did not even spare the children."

The Turks have committed atrocities against other minorities as well, The Tower of skulls of Chele Kula shown below, is a monument to the Turkish savagery against the Serbs in the early 1800s

Lest we think "Well that was ancient history", as recently as 1974 Turkey invaded Cyprus. Just as the Romans renamed Israel, Palestine in order to erase the memory of the Jewish State, the Turks have renamed all the cities and towns in Cyprus. They have also destroyed concrete evidence of the Christian and Greek history of the area of Cyprus under their control. According to an article in the Guardian ('The Rape of northern Cyprus', 5.6.1976)

"...The vandalism and desecration are so methodical and so widespread that they amount to institutionalized obliteration of everything sacred to a Greek [...] In some instances, an entire graveyard of 50 or more tombs had been reduced to pieces or rubble no larger than a matchbox...we found the chapel of Ayios Demetrios at Ardhana empty but for the remains of the altar plinth, and that was fouled with human excrement[...] At Syngrasis [...] the broken crucifix was drenched in urine.. At Lefkoniko [...the interior of Gaidhouras church...] was overlooked by an armless Christ on a smashed crucifix.. Tombs gaped open wherever we went... crosses bearing the pictures of those buried beneath [...] had been flattened and destroyed."

Cypriots who oppose the Turks are treated severely; in 1996 the Greek Cypriot demonstrator, Anastasios (Tasos) Isaak, was beaten to death by the Turkish occupation forces. According to the Greek Cypriot Magazine Selides. August, 1996, one thousand six hundred and nineteen Greek Cypriots and Greeks who were taken as prisoners of war during the Turkish invasion of Cyprus are still missing.

The Turkish Heritage of Anti-Semitism

Although there have indeed been periods when Turkey has been more tolerant of Jews than Christian Europe, Mustapha Akyol’s claim that Turkey has an Islamic heritage free of anti-semitism is false. Andrew Bostom, in his article Turkish "Tolerance of Jews", A Sobering Historical Assessment" quotes Professor Maoz who wrote that:

"Like their Christian fellow subjects, the Jews were inferior citizens in the Muslim-Ottoman state which was based on the principle of Muslim superiority. They were regarded as state protégés (dhimmis) and had to pay a special poll tax (jizya) for that protection and as a sign of their inferior status. Their testimony was not accepted in the courts of justice, and in cases of the murder of a Jew or Christian by a Muslim, the latter was usually not condemned to death. In addition, Jews as well as Christians were normally not acceptable for appointments to the highest administrative posts; they were forbidden to carry arms (thus, to serve in the army), to ride horses in towns or to wear Muslim dress. They were also not usually allowed to build or repair places of worship and were often subjected to oppression, extortion and violence by both the local authorities and the Muslim population."

Professor Tudor Parfitt in his comprehensive study of the Jews of Palestine during the 19th century wrote about the Turkish oppression of the Jews of Palestine as follows:

"…Inside the towns, Jews and other dhimmis were frequently attacked, wounded, and even killed by local Muslims and Turkish soldiers. Such attacks were frequently for trivial reasons: Wilson [in British Foreign Office correspondence] recalled having met a Jew who had been badly wounded by a Turkish soldier for not having instantly dismounted when ordered to give up his donkey to a soldier of the Sultan. Many Jews were killed for less. On occasion the authorities attempted to get some form of redress but this was by no means always the case: the Turkish authorities themselves were sometimes responsible for beating Jews to death for some unproven charge. After one such occasion [british Consul] Young remarked: ‘I must say I am sorry and surprised that the Governor could have acted so savage a part- for certainly what I have seen of him I should have thought him superior to such wanton inhumanity- but it was a Jew- without friends or protection- it serves to show well that it is not without reason that the poor Jew, even in the nineteenth century, lives from day to day in terror of his life’."

During World War I in Palestine, the embattled Young Turk government actually began deporting the Jews of Tel Aviv in the spring of 1917 - an ominous parallel to the genocidal deportations of the Armenian dhimmi communities throughout Anatolia. A Reuters press release regarding the deportation states that:

" on April 1 [1917] an order was given to deport all the Jews from Tel Aviv, including citizens of the Central Powers, within forty-eight hours. A week before, three hundred Jews were expelled from Jerusalem: Jamal ***** [one of the triumvirate of Young Turk supreme leaders, Minister of the Navy, and commander of the Fourth Army in the Levant] declared that their fate would be that of the Armenians; eight thousand deportees from Tel Aviv were not allowed to take any provisions with them, and after the expulsion their houses were looted by Bedouin mobs; two Yemenite Jews who tried to oppose the looting were hung at the entrance to Tel Aviv so that all might see, and other Jews were found dead in the Dunes around Tel Aviv."

It was not clear why the slaughter did not occur. One hypothesis put forth by the British Zionist movement suggested that the advance of the British army (from immediately adjacent Egypt) and its potential willingness "..to hold the military and Turkish authorities directly responsible for a policy of slaughter and destruction of the Jews" may have averted this disaster.

Turkish hostility to the Jews during World War II led them to refuse to allow Jews to flee Hitler into Turkey. In one instance 769 Jews packed an old, dilapidated cattle boat called the Struma and made it to the shores of Turkey. The Turks denied them entry and eventually towed them out to sea where they sank.

The Pro-Western Leanings of Turkey

Although it is wrong to say, as Mustapha Akyol did, that Turkey has a pro-Western heritage, the fact that Turkey has been a member of the NATO alliance since 1952 and has a democratic government suggests that there are influential people with pro-Western and pro-democratic sentiments in Turkey. Unfortunately the influence of Turkey's great Westernizing leader Kemal Ataturk is waning, and there is growing pro-fundamentalist Islamic sentiment in Turkey. The Pew Research Center's Global Attitudes Survey from March this year noted that "in Turkey "as many as 31 percent say that suicide attacks against Americans and other Westerners in Iraq are justifiable." The growing pro-Islamist sentiment in Turkey is the reason why the Turkish army has been forced more than once to overthrow democratically elected Islamic leaders who might have turned Turkey back into a Shariah state. The recent election of Mr. Erdogan as Prime Minister of Turkey raises such concerns again. Before his election, Mr. Erdogan was convicted of inciting religious hatred because of a speech he gave at a political rally in 1998. Under Erdogan’s leadership Turkey is trading with Iran despite U.S. calls to isolate Iran. It is possible that Turkey’s membership in the NATO alliance has less to do with pro-Western sentiment than with fear of Russia and eagerness to benefit from the generous military and economic aid from the United States that comes with being an American ally. Likewise the desire of Turkey to join the European Union is based on hopes that such a move would help the Turkish economy.

The Missing Step Toward Islamic Tolerance

In his article, Mr. Akyol outlined a series of steps for Muslims and the West to take to reduce Islamic militance and to encourage tolerance among Muslims. One of those steps was for France to allow Muslim girls to wear head scarves in French public schools. This suggestion ignores the reason France had to impose this rule to begin with. Muslims were intimidating both Muslim and non-Muslim girls into wearing head scarves against their will. Although Mr. Akyol may be right that further Muslim militance may result from the French law, the French law was made necessary by Muslim militance to begin with.

Mr. Akyol outlined a series of steps for Muslims to take to reduce Islamic militance but he left out the most important step which is that Muslims should acknowledge that the attacks on infidels that they have committed in the name of Islam are wrong. U.S. ambassador James Gerald wrote that "The principles of Justice are more important than oil or the railroads" and that "the Turks should not be accepted into the society of decent nations until they show sincere repentance for their crimes."

Another step Mustapha Akyol listed was to replace Shariah with a new interpretation of Islam. He wrote, "A great deal of shariah laws — like killing of apostates, .. have simply no basis in the Qur'an." While reform of Islam is indeed essential, the killing of apostates has a basis in the Koran. The command to "Slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush. " is from the Koran ( 9:5). So is the command: "Smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger tips of them. (8:12)". This command is undoubtedly treated as religious grounds by those who commit the many recent beheadings in Iraq.

Should Turkey be Admitted into the European Union?

There is one overriding reason to be concerned about admitting Turkey into the European Union, and that is the potential effect of Turkish membership on the Muslim population of European countries which are already having serious problems as a result of their large Islamic populations. If Turkey joins the EU, a significant percentage of Turkey's over 60 million Muslims may enter Europe. Furthermore, many millions of Muslims from other Islamic countries are likely to use Turkey as their gateway to Europe. Once they attain legal status in Turkey, these Muslims from other Islamic countries will be free to go anywhere in Europe.

Bat Yeor in an article in frontpagemagazine (Arafat’s Legacy for Europe 11/16/04) wrote that

"Islamist terror from within and without is overwhelming Europe. Today it is not uncommon to hear Europeans express their disgust for Europe and their wish to emigrate. Europe, they say, is dead and has no future."

It may be that it is already too late for Europe. The countries of Europe are slowly becoming subjugated to hostile rapidly growing Muslim populations. Bat Yeor in an article in frontpagemagazine (Arafat’s Legacy for Europe 11/16/04) wrote that

"Islamist terror from within and without is overwhelming Europe. Today it is not uncommon to hear Europeans express their disgust for Europe and their wish to emigrate. Europe, they say, is dead and has no future."

In its jealousy of American power and determination to create a counter-power, France, with support from Germany, has looked to ally itself with Islamic countries in order to help create that counterweight to the United States. On October 26, 2004, France and Germany stood behind Turkey’s campaign to join the European Union. Admitting the Turkish Trojan Horse may give them the power to counter the United States but the price they will pay will be further subjugation to a growing hostile European Muslim population.

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16059

Nakharar · November 23, 2004

Catholics say Brussels must set conditions for Turkey

Prelates ask EU to set more human rights conditions, religion not an issue

By Paul Taylor - Reuters

BRUSSELS - Roman Catholic bishops from across the European Union questioned yesterday whether Turkey was ready to open EU membership talks and said Brussels should set further human rights conditions for starting negotiations.

The Bishops’ Conferences of the European Community (COMECE) said there was no religious obstacle to the overwhelmingly Muslim nation joining the EU, but Turkey must respect basic rights, such as equality for women and religious freedom.

“Therefore, it must be asked whether it is appropriate to open negotiations with Turkey, while fundamental rights, including religious freedom, are not fully respected in that state,” they said in a statement.

The prelates noted that the executive European Commission, in its report on Turkey’s candidacy last month, had pointed to remaining shortcomings but not linked the opening of talks to better respect of those rights.

“The bishops of COMECE propose that before negotiations... begin with Turkey, the Turkish government is required to correct shortcomings with regard to religious freedom and the legal status of minorities according to the provisions of the Treaty of Lausanne 1923,” the statement said.

They urged EU leaders to include this provision in their decision at a summit on Dec. 17 on whether and when to open accession talks with Turkey.

The bishops said the question of starting accession talks with Turkey was political, not religious.

They rejected wording that would have questioned more fundamentally whether the EU could admit Turkey.

An initial draft of the statement seen by Reuters said EU leaders should question “whether the European Union is capable in the medium term of absorbing such a large country with Turkey’s history and geostrategic position.”

The Lausanne Treaty recognizes Christian Greeks, Armenians and Jews as minorities with official status in the country.

The treaty does not mention Kurds, Circassians, Arabs or non-Sunni Alevis as minorities. Human rights groups say the definition should be widened to include them, but the Turkish government opposes this.

Siamanto · November 26, 2004

Zaman Online, Turkey!

Nov 25 2004

[COMMENTARY]

Return to Reason

by Val�ry Giscard d'Estaing

The prospect of Turkey's entry into the European Union has prompted a

passionate debate. The most varied arguments have been put forward:

those in favour of entry refer to the promises dating back several

decades, the insult a negative response would represent to the

Islamic world, the progress achieved by Turkey, the risk of poisoning

further the clash between different civilisations; those against

membership bring up the fact that five-sixths of Turkey's territory,

including its capital, are located outside of Europe, the size of its

population, the economic and social consequences of the inclusion of

the poorest country in the Union, the existence of a widespread

Turkish speaking community outside of Turkey and the oddity of Europe

discovering one day that it shares a common border with Syria, Iraq

and Iran.

In short, there are many arguments, which divide public opinion. In

France itself, at the same time as the President of the Republic

declared in Berlin, on 26 October 2004, that "my dearest wish is that

EU membership talks, which will last around ten to fifteen years,

conclude in the possibility of full membership", 64 percent of the

French declared in an opinion poll that they were opposed to Turkey

becoming a member.

Is it wishful thinking to hope that some reason will be introduced

into this debate? France can contribute to this enlightenment. It is

a discussion which must be held without prejudice and without

passions, with an attempt to broach the essential ideas: what is the

fairest manner, adapted in accordance with objective information, in

which to organise relations between Turkey and the European Union in

the coming decades?

***

Let us start by examining the first two arguments: the promises made

to Turkey and the refusal to accept a Muslim state into the European

Union.

The pledges made in the 1960s must be considered within a different

historical context. They involved the possible entry of Turkey into

the "Single Market", which was exclusively economic in nature at the

time. It can be said that these commitments were respected since the

European Union signed a Customs Union treaty in 1995 with Turkey,

which gave it access to this market.

As for the refusal to consider European Union membership for Turkey

for religious reasons, this is an ulterior motive ascribed by the

partisans of Turkish membership to their adversaries. On this point,

a categorical response must be given: the religion of the majority of

Turks is not an argument which shall determine the acceptance or

rejection of Turkey's candidacy! Besides, it is likely that the

European Union shall be led to welcome a state with an Islamic

culture, for example Bosnia-Herzegovina, when civic peace and

democratic maturity have become the reality in the former Yugoslavia.

If reference to religion is not an argument to be used against

Turkey's candidacy, neither should it be considered, on the other

hand, as an argument justifying its entry. Would acceptance of Turkey

into the European Union prevent this country from sliding towards

Islamic fundamentalism? We cannot know. The intensity of religious

faith will depend not only on internal factors, but on the solidarity

of ties with the neighbouring Islamic countries as well, which to the

Turks might seem to be more natural than changing their laws to fit

the model set up by remote authorities in distant Brussels.

Let us therefore set aside this muddle of contradictory questions.

*

Article I-57 of the Treaty of the European Union States provides that

"Any European State which wishes to become a member of the Union

shall address its application to the Council of Ministers. [�] The

Council of Ministers shall act unanimously". Each Member State

therefore reserves the right to veto the entry of a candidate state.

These terms are also provided in the Draft Constitution.

Is Turkey a "European State"? The Atlas of the magazine "National

Geographic" includes Turkey in its section focusing on Asia. While it

is true that Turkey still possesses a small European enclave, this

portion only represents 5% of its territory and 8% of its population.

The rest of the country is located in Asia, on the Anatolia plateau,

where the founder of modern-day Turkey, Kemal Atat�rk, chose to

relocate the country's capital.

Turkey shares a small border with each of its two European

neighbours, Greece and Bulgaria; it has a very long border with the

Middle Eastern countries which were once part of the Ottoman Empire,

Syria and Iraq; and lastly, it shares a border with Iran and Armenia.

Turkey has its own language and culture. The Turkish language does

not share the same roots as those found in the large family of

Indo-European languages.

Today, Turkey's population numbers around 73 million inhabitants. It

is more populous than any of the European States, with the exception

of Germany. The United Nations' demographic projections estimate

that, in twenty years, Turkey shall be the largest state in the

European Union in terms of population, which could reach up to 89

million. For the same period, Germany, France and Great Britain

should have populations of, respectively, 82, 64, and 63 million

inhabitants. It should also be borne in mind that the Turkish

population is part of a much larger community with Turkish roots

which remains united through ties of solidarity, and which extends to

the East, notably the Central Asian States, for example Turkmenistan.

Living standards in Turkey remain a long way off from the ones

enjoyed throughout most of Europe. The average income per inhabitant

is only half the level of that of the ten new Member States and

one-fifth that of the Europe of fifteen. The structure of its

economy, although it has made noticeable progress in recent years, is

still a far cry from the European "norm". Agricultural production

still accounts for 14percent of its GDP, a figure which led the

European Commissioner in charge of Agriculture to declare "the costs

to the European budget of the entry of Turkish agriculture alone

would dwarf the costs of the entry of the ten new members".

***

The current wavering of the European project, the scepticism towards

it expressed by European citizens - confirmed by the high abstention

rates in the last European elections - can be explained by the lack

of clarity of this project. Which Europe is at stake? The successive

enlargements have increased the uncertainty of people's opinions.

Where will it end - this turning away from a Europe that is still

unorganised, ineffective in its results, and which is losing the

democratic support of its population?

Europeans need to strengthen their sense of identity. "European

patriotism" can only begin to exist when European citizens become

conscious of belonging to a common whole.

The European Convention sought to better define the basic foundation

of this common whole: the cultural contributions of ancient Greece

and Rome, the religious heritage which permeates European life, the

creative impetus of the Renaissance, the philosophy of the Age of

Enlightenment, the input of rational and scientific thought. Turkey

did not share any part of this heritage. This simple statement of

fact does not imply a pejorative judgement! Turkey developed its own

history and culture in parallel, which merits respect. However, it

must be noted objectively that the foundations on which identity is

built, an essential element today in establishing the cohesion of the

European Union, are different.

Turkey's accession, whenever it should take place, would make it the

primary decision-maker of the European Union. It would change the

nature of the European project.

First of all, this accession could not remain an isolated event.

Already, the queue of possible members is forming, both in the East

and the West. The electoral debate in Ukraine is focused on the

eventuality of its joining the European Union. It is also likely that

Morocco will be tempted to follow the same path opened up by Turkey.

The result is a permanent enlargement process, destabilising the

functioning of the system and causing it to lose its original

rationale.

Secondly, the population level is a key element in regulating the

functioning of the European Institutions, the European Parliament and

the Council of Ministers.

As regards the Parliament, the maximum number of Members has already

been set at 750, and it is provided that the breakdown of its

membership be divided up among the States in proportion with its

population size, with an adjustment in favour of the smaller states,

and a maximum number of 96 members per state. If Turkey were to join

the European Union, it would account for a little over 15 percent of

its population. It would therefore have 96 members, at a parity with

Germany. To make room for these new members, the number of other

States' representatives, notably those of Great Britain, France and

Italy, would have to be reduced.

As regards the Council of Ministers, the Constitution provides for

recourse to a double majority: for a decision to be adopted, it must

receive the support of at least 55% of the States, representing at

least 65 percent of the Union's population. With its 15%, Turkey

becomes a key factor in the decision-making process. It is hard to

forget Spain and Poland's recent opposition to voting by a double

majority, even though it was only a matter of being at a disadvantage

in terms of a few points. The entry of Turkey would result in a

disadvantage of fifteen points!

In order to avoid the situation where the last State to join the

Union - and as a result, unfamiliar with its functioning - would

become the primary decision-maker, it would be necessary to rewrite

the Constitution and to institute a maximum limit with respect to how

the population of Member States is taken into account. The debate

triggered by this issue at the Convention should be remembered: the

chances of ending up with a new draft acceptable to all are

questionable.

Please do not misunderstand me. As far as Turkey is concerned, it

does not have to be merely a question of rejection or contempt.

Rather, the reverse is true.

Indeed, it is because of the fact that it has become a large nation

in terms of its size and demography that it represents a sizeable

problem to Europe. It is already a weighty presence and will continue

to be one, one so considerable that its entry would strike at the

foundations of the still fragile community edifice, which was

conceived with other ends in mind. Constitutions are not all-purpose

forms to which it merely suffices to add the name of the latest

member. All Constitutions - the American, French and European ones -

are meticulous constructions resulting from compromises imposed by

the necessities of the moment. The fact remains that the European

Constitution submitted today for ratification was not conceived to

take in a power the size of Turkey.

***

When tackling this issue, the most surprising finding is the way in

which most European leaders have let themselves be caught in a

simplistic impasse: either say yes to the opening of negotiations

with a view towards the full membership of Turkey in the European

Union or shut the door in its face. How did this choice end up being

one of such paltry, extreme simplification? Other countries know how

to manage these problems better: the United States, Canada and Mexico

share as many similarities, perhaps even more, as those existing

between Europe and Turkey. No one talks of joining them together.

Instead, they have patiently constructed a free-trade zone and

established bilateral ties of co-operation.

Europe needs to reintroduce creativity and imagination in its

approach to defining its relations with its neighbours: Turkey,

naturally, but with Russia and the Mediterranean countries as well.

If the only solution being contemplated is either entry into the EU

or running the risk of antagonising its partners, the European Union

is doomed to become a regional organisation of the United Nations, a

structure allowing for meetings, dialogue and a few specialised areas

of co-operation. But, in this case, a common identity, will and role

to play cannot exist. The world will evolve without Europe, which

will thus be left marginalised.

Future negotiations with Turkey should therefore not be centred on

membership, but should explore the nature of the ties that the

European Union should form with its large neighbours. Let us try to

speak in concrete terms: as regards the economy, anything is

possible, but it can only be a gradual process; as regards politics,

nothing other than co-operation is possible, which must be organised

in such a way as to satisfy all involved. The European Union must

prove that it is capable of making a proposal to Turkey, without

delay, which is highly structured, honourable and specific in its

terms.

It is not simple chance which led the European Convention to propose

the insertion of Article 57 in the Constitution, which provides the

European Union with the possibility of negotiating privileged

partnership agreements with its neighbours. This text is the end

result of extensive discussions on the manner in which the European

Union could respond to the legitimate requests of its neighbours - to

the East, Southeast and South - without diluting its own underlying

principles.

The conclusion resulting from the foregoing is thus clear: in

December, the European Council should take the decision to open

negotiations aimed at establishing a common zone of economic

prosperity and setting up permanent structures of political

co-operation, key components of a privileged partnership between

Turkey and the European Union.

This is, in my opinion, the constructive and realistic attitude to be

adopted which would enable progress by responding to Turkey's

expectations without placing at risk the fragile construction of the

European Union, which has not yet been able to completely handle the

impact on the institutions and the budget ensuing from the last

enlargement.

Of course, this proposal should be actively supported by France -

endowed, along with its partners, with the wisdom of the founders -

in view of a decision which, it must be borne in mind, can only be

taken unanimously.

While we have recently heard a great deal on the question, "What

about Turkey?" perhaps the moment has come to raise another one:

"What about Europe?"

http://groong.usc.edu/news/msg97740.html

Siamanto · March 7, 2005

Turkey is showing "slippage"

ANKARA, March 3 (Reuters) - Turkey is showing "slippage" in its reform

drive to join the European Union, though current slow progress should

not jeopardise the start of entry talks on schedule on Oct. 3, an EU

envoy said on Thursday.

Hansjorg Kretschmer cited reports of police harrassment of Turkey's

Alevi religious minority, of petty restrictions placed on the

Istanbul-based Greek Orthodox Patriarchate and of excessive police

force used against demonstrators.

Kretschmer said Turkey needed to complete a law on religious

foundations that would buttress the property and educational rights of

its non-Muslim minorities.

"There has been slippage in the quality of implementation," Kretschmer

told Reuters in an interview.

He said he did not necessarily blame the conservative government for

the shortcomings but argued Turkey's whole state bureaucracy must work

to ensure reforms were properly enacted.

He expressed concern that no senior officials had publicly condemned

or tried to act on death threats aimed at Orhan Pamuk, an

internationally renowned Turkish novelist.

Pamuk recently upset Turkish nationalists by backing Armenian genocide

claims. Armenians say more than a million of their compatriots were

killed by Ottoman Turks in 1915-22 -- a claim strongly rejected by

Ankara.

"Democracy and human rights always have to be defended in in all our

countries...There are always interests which want to curtail some of

these... But the risk is much bigger (in Turkey) than in more

established democracies," he said.

ADVERSE REACTION

Kretschmer said none of the issues cited would delay the start of

talks. He added a note of caution.

"If an impression is created in the EU (that) Turkey is no longer so

committed to conduct political reforms, there might be an adverse

political reaction in the EU."

Many in the EU remain deeply uneasy about admitting Turkey, a large,

poor, overwhelmingly Muslim country of more than 70 million people,

even though negotiations could last a decade.

France has promised its voters a referendum before Ankara is finally

allowed to join the wealthy bloc.

Kretschmer played down fears of a French 'no' vote.

"To the extent that Turkey makes progress to adjust to EU standards

and becomes a liberal democracy ... to that extent European public

opinion will also become more benign," he said. On Cyprus, the biggest

threat to Turkey's EU bid, Kretschmer also sounded a relaxed note. "I

personally am confident this will not be an obstacle to talks starting

on Oct. 3," he said.

Turkey must sign a protocol extending its customs union with the EU to

10 new member states including Cyprus before the October deadline, but

is currently exploring the legal implications of such a move.

Turkey does not recognise the Greek Cypriot government, viewed by the

EU as the sole legal representative of the whole island of

Cyprus. Ankara instead backs a breakaway Turkish Cypriot enclave in

the north of the Mediterranean island.

"I think the political determination to get the EU talks started on

Oct. 3 will be the priority for the government," said Kretschmer,

signalling he believed a compromise could be found.

03/03/05 21:01 ET

http://groong.usc.edu/news/msg104518.html

Siamanto · March 7, 2005

France has promised its voters a referendum before Ankara is finally
allowed to join the wealthy bloc.

Kretschmer played down fears of a French 'no' vote.

style_images/master/snapback.png

The campaign of the referendum on the new European Constitution started today. Nicolas Sarkozy - the favorite of the next Presidential Elections - reiterated:

"Yes to Europe, No to Turkey."

The message is clear, but it's too early to call!

Edited March 7, 2005 by Siamanto

Arpa · June 12, 2005

A very interesting article by Fareed Zakaria in this wek's Newseek.

The whole article is worth a read, yet note the paragraphs I have highlighted.

========

MSNBC.com

What's Wrong With Europe

The tragedy is, Europe needs more of what's producing populist anger: reform, immigration and relations with the Muslim world.

By Fareed Zakaria

Newsweek

June 13 issue - In English, a double negative usually means yes. but not in European. Last week's double "no"—from France and the Netherlands—has for all practical purposes killed the new European constitution. Most Americans are not quite sure what to make of this. The clearest and loudest voices have been gleeful. Conservative commentators have delighted in the results, seeing them as a defeat for Jacques Chirac and his dreams of an alternative to American hyperpower.

The European constitution is a badly written, confused document whose death no one need mourn. But as Princeton's Andrew Moravcsik has written, the constitution would have changed little, codifying existing arrangements in almost all areas. There are two exceptions: a more coordinated and unified approach to crimefighting and foreign policy.

On foreign policy, the constitution would actually have changed little. Europe's currently powerless High Representative of foreign policy was to become an equally powerless "minister." It wouldn't change the fact that neither Jacques Chirac nor Tony Blair would ever delegate serious policymaking to a Brussels bureaucrat. When things get serious, as with Europe's negotiations with Iran, look who negotiates: the foreign ministers of the Big Three powers. The High Representative gets to go to conferences on the Middle East peace process.

This is the irony of last week's votes. It was a revolutionary moment that will keep things as they are. In fact, one could argue that Europeans cast their votes in the full knowledge that it would have changed nothing in their day-to-day lives. That means it provided the perfect opportunity for a symbolic protest vote. But symbolism does matter. And the signal that has been sent is threefold.

First, it's a signal against economic reform. If you want to understand why people voted against the constitution, listen to the advocates of rejection. Virtually no one campaigned against a more unified foreign policy (which has more than 70 percent support in poll after poll) or more coordinated police work (which, post-9/11, is also extremely popular). Almost all those leading the "no" movement spoke out against one thing above all—the free-market-oriented reforms that Brussels is associated with.

Throughout Continental Europe, the people who vote in favor of "Europe" in one way or another tend to be urban, educated and, above all, involved in private business. That's because they have seen that it is Brussels that created a common market, lowered tariffs and deregulated industries. It is Brussels that now aggressively urges further reforms—such as the so-called Lisbon Agenda.

The only European voice that claims Brussels is an enemy of the free market is Britain's Europhobic Tory press and its fellow travelers in the United States. So The Wall Street Journal editorial page bizarrely asserted last week that the constitution "would have enhanced the leverage of French socialism on the Continent." The Journal must believe that all of Europe's business groups and entrepreneurs (who supported the constitution) and all of Europe's labor unions, pensioners and protectionist groups (who opposed it) suffer from what Friedrich Engels called "false consciousness." I tend to think that European entrepreneurs on the ground have a better sense of what Brussels has meant than New York editorialists.

The second signal that this vote sends is against immigration and labor mobility. The "no" from Holland is clearly related to this. The nightmare unfolding in that country is that a large segment of its North African immigrant population is proving to be illiberal, unwilling to assimilate and, increasingly, violent. Against this grim backdrop, the Dutch look at an ever-expanding Europe of lowered borders with great suspicion. There is a related backlash against foreign aid. The Dutch are now the largest per capita contributors to Europe and believe that the EU's expansion has taken place on their backs.

Finally and related to these first two: the most emphatic signal from last week is about Turkey. Turkish membership in Europe has suffered a mortal blow. The most potent arguments on the campaign trail were anti-Turkish, and politicians will take note of that. In two years, the likely leaders of both Germany and France (Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy) will be staunchly opposed to Turkish membership in the EU.

Of course, what Europe desperately needs is more of all the trends that are producing populist paranoia. It needs more economic reform to survive in a new era of global competition, more young immigrants to sustain its social market and a more strategic relationship with the Muslim world, which would be dramatically enhanced by Turkish membership in the EU.

Perhaps the European project has been too elitist and its leaders too unwilling to explain their actions to their populations. But before we start singing paeans to people power, let us hear what the people actually said and ask ourselves, Is this good for Europe, for the United States and for the world in general?