Politics Should Turkey Join The EU?

[Gwyllgi]

In a recent interview with Erdogan, the Turkish PM, the matter of the continued denial of the undeniable was raised. With an interesting response.

SPIEGEL: Why doesn't modern Turkey acknowledge the Ottoman Empire's genocide against the Armenians? The Foreign Affairs Committee of the United States House of Representatives has approved an Armenian Genocide resolution ...

Erdogan: When a journalist uses the word genocide, he should take a careful look at the issue first.
There can be no talk of genocide against the Armenians. Genocide is a legal term.

(My observation) And a legal term defined by the UN and which applies to what the Turks got up to against the Armenians, the Greeks, and the Assyrians.

In 2005, I wrote a letter to then-Armenian President Robert Kocharian, in which I told him that this is not a matter for politicians like us, but one that needs to be studied by historians.

(My observation) And I do hope that Kocharian pointed out that historians provide the evidence and the politicians must take the appropriate actions. The historians have done their bit. The Turks have not and worse yet continue to deny that they should.

There are currently millions of documents on the subject in Turkish archives, of which more than 1 million have been examined since I wrote to Kocharian.

If there are archives in your country, I wrote to him, then make them accessible.

(My observation) They are.

And if historians cannot clarify the subject sufficiently, then let lawyers, political scientists and archaeologists take part in the effort.

(My observation) Historians HAVE clarified the subject. Independent historians, Sufficiently for everyone but the Turks it would seem.

From his response to the Turkish genocides it would seem that he has taken at least one leaf from the “how to run a country” handbook by the late and very unlamented Joseph Goebbels.

Reading the rest of the Spiegel interview :-
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,686131,00.html#ref=nlint

what comes over, at least to me, is a duplicitous individual up to his neck in taqiyya and kitman, and representing everything that we should be avoiding.

Yet someone who for some strange reason thinks he holds a winning hand and can now play the game to his own advantage.

WE should be aware that this is what he is like when he thinks he can call his own tune. It is indicative of how he would behave within Europe if he was able to, and so we should have nothing to do with him, or a country of which he is a far from untypical member of the population in terms of values, aims, ambitions, and morality.

Be a neighbour by all means but a family member? To paraphrase the old “Atomcraft” bumper sticker ……… Türkische Art? Kein Dank

 

[Tautalos]

I think we have established that you have your own idea about what constitutes "European". It's mostly a racialist (you call it "ethnicist" although that is not a word in the English language)

No, it is not just racialist, it is also ethnicist, or, if you have a hard time trying to understand it, ETHNIC.

argument but with some nods towards some faulty geography

No, your's is the faulty geography. Asia Minor is not Europe. Period. It's not European, it's Asian.

You are to be commended for your clarity if not your logic or tolerance.

Oh, thank's a lot.

 

[Tautalos]

1) ok, so Greece isn't European either... To the eyes of a northern European,

This is not «the eyes» of anyone. It's objective data. Turkish is not an Indo-European language. Greek is. It's as simple as that.

the influences of Turkey are obvious in Greece

That's arguable. And of secondary importance.

Unless we are willing to dismiss most of our dishes, many of our words

But never the language - and never the historic memory.

And send back our grandparents from Asia minor, who, in Greece were treated like Turks anyway when they first came (I know it for sure, my grandparents came from Asia Miror), right???

If they were not Turks, that's a social matter, not an ethnic one. Thus, it's a non sequitur argument.

2) The Byzantine empire, was already falling apart because of the extreme corruption!

Oh, really, in that case let any country invade Europe and kill tons of Europeans, since Europe is «falling apart» according to many people...

If it wasn't the Ottoman, It would be someone else..

That's not an argument. The Ottomans had no business in Byzantium, no matter how decadent it was. Otherwise, any neighbour of yours might think that your lifestyle is decadent and you can't defend yourself, and then invade your house and enslave you, because «if it wasn't him, it would be someone else».


Many historians say many things. That the Muslims were always enemies of the West, is a given.

2) Bullshit! Each nation of the "West" was enemy with other nations

No, it is not bullshit. And the vast majority of the Western Nations were ALWAYS together against the COMMON Muslim foe, NO MATTER how hostile these nations were to each other.

And What the F**k is the "West" anyway???

The heir of the Classic (Greek-Roman) civilization and of the Indo-European blood.


That's racially. Not ethnically. Turkic language and roots are not European.

3) Shall I repeat what I said in no 1)?????

Repeat it how many times you want. A lie repeated one thousand times is always a lie.

 

[Tautalos]

Believe what you want,

So do you... regardlessly of Geography and History, and Ethnicity.

Byzantine Empire would have collapsed anyway sooner or later,

Yes, good. Next time the Kurds kill a few Turks with a bomb, and if one of these days Greece attacks Western Turkey, Armenia the north and at East the Kurds rebel, remember that «Turkey would have collapsed anyway sooner or later».

Byzantines destroyed many civilizations when they made their conquests

Good reasoning. Remember that when/if Turkey falls apart, one of these days, because the Turks slaughtered thousands.

Actually modern Turkish not Turkic is based on the Latin alphabet

Ignorant, or stupidly dishonest, comment. This is about Language, not Alphabet. If you don't know the difference, I will not lose time explaining it to you.

Ataturk was a secular man yes, but both his parents were Muslims

But he was not. And he strongly repressed the Muslims. His parents' devotion is non sequitur.

Military rule is not democratic and they have falsified fears of re-emergence of Islamic government

It is not falsified - it is obvious, each day Turkey is showing more and more islamification.

Turkey did not commit these crimes, it was committed by a group of three pashas/rulers (Enver, Talat, Jamal) search

Oh really, and Germany did not committ the holocaust, it was Hitler and Himmler...

atrocities were committed on both sides, the attacks were not provoked and there were deportations as well, shows how unreliable and biased

More bullshit.
In that case, Germany can say that the world Jewery did declare war to Germany in 1933 and that's all, «atrocities were committed on both sides». The fact is that only Turkey slaughtered Armenians en mass. Armenians did not slaughter Turks massively.
Moreover, if that «argument» was an argument at all, in that case it would be the FIRST argument that you people would be using now, and not the last, desperate one. And now is too late to start again your «tu quoque» line of discussion.

Again you don't know anything,

Again, all your «arguments» were dismissed and your feeble attempts to deny reality were smashed - not that they were too solid from the start, anyway.

Nope about a few hundred thousands, exxaggerated and unreliable

Nope, the facts are known solidly enough so that now even the ally of Turkey U.S.A., as well as Sweden, admitted it as a genocide.
And, mind you, «a few hundred thousands» is still, well, how to say it, a lot of people...

Nope it is only the extremist Islam that you and other people look at,

Nope, it is not. It's the very leader of Turkey, Erdogan, that is giving more and more clear demonstrations of Islamic fanaticism. And the fact that you either deny it or simply don't see it, only shows that your opinion is seriously flawed on the subject.

really funny don't tell me what to do,

No, you don't tell me what to do. This is definitly not Turkey, this is Europe, and here we have free speech. Since you don't like, that's your problem. All I want is that you and your ilk keep away from Europe - and that should not be too bad for you, after all you are always complaining about the West, aren't you?

so mind your own business and watch you own language

No, you mind your own business and watch your own language. And know your right place.

and so called "freedom of speech".

Yes, one the cardinal values of true Europe, that you obviously do not respect.

 

[Cambrius (The Red)]

I believe TurkYusuf1 has been banned for using abusive language.

 

[Wilhelm]

i only said that i have genetic brothers there thats all you want me to hate them ?
they are my brothers in australia there are also many italians , cypriotes ,greeks
and many other so yes the british australians will oposed migration of turks to australia but thats only because the racist elment m9 male descendents r1b which are the majority of the populations the same {gookish elemnt} which follow other e1b1b1 leaders like mussolini , hittler and others .
the gooks m9 descendents are the most racist no doubt in my mind about it .
i have no symapthy thowards cf {p-143} but since they are the majority in the world i have no choice but to live with them that why haplogroup as realy center in specific spots africa mediterreanean levant and mediterreanean europe
same goes fore paleo-asianids the original asian haplogroup d which we both carry the yap element mainly tibeteans and my favourits japanese which the samurai and kamikaza element rose from this asian stock
genetic code

Being R1b doesn't mean you can't have ancestors with J2 or I or E3b, or any other haplogroup. The Y-DNA is just the paternal line.

 

[^ lynx ^]

What an odd reply!

There’s a very great deal to a nation than the genetic composition of even a majority of its population.

To reduce people to their genetic markers is horrifyingly racist in the worst possible way.

The question stands.

What would most Australians response be to a proposition to allow unfettered immigration from a nation with a low standard of living, a dreadful record on Human Rights, and a people who hold to an ideology that runs counter to its own in every way?

Totally agreed.

 

[^ lynx ^]

yeh, the islam in europe is punishment on the european gooks m9 descendents
on what they have done {with no emothions at all because they are gooks }
between 1939-1945

At least the "gooks" have recognized and apologized for those events between 1939-1945... unlike the so-called more democratic islamic country (Turkey) which not only haven't recognized/apologize for the armenian genocide but keep deniying it with pitiful propaganda...

Yet one more different between the West world and the islamic world.

 

[Cambrius (The Red)]

i only said that i have genetic brothers there thats all you want me to hate them ?
they are my brothers in australia there are also many italians , cypriotes ,greeks
and many other so yes the british australians will oposed migration of turks to australia but thats only because the racist elment m9 male descendents r1b which are the majority of the populations the same {gookish elemnt} which follow other e1b1b1 leaders like mussolini , hittler and others .
the gooks m9 descendents are the most racist no doubt in my mind about it .
i have no symapthy thowards cf {p-143} but since they are the majority in the world i have no choice but to live with them that why haplogroup as realy center in specific spots africa mediterreanean levant and mediterreanean europe
same goes fore paleo-asianids the original asian haplogroup d which we both carry the yap element mainly tibeteans and my favourits japanese which the samurai and kamikaza element rose from this asian stock
genetic code

Your writing is tinged with racism...

 

[Chris]

If the accession of new states would be up to popular vote, no states would likely ever be able to enter no matter if it would be good for the EU. I can't imagine Britain ever voting for a new member, and that goes for many countries.

That's the bottom line, especially if it were up to the popular vote.

 

[Cambrius (The Red)]

That's the bottom line, especially if it were up to the popular vote.

Too right...

 

[chris eblana]

i am not sure....turkey is a european country so it does belong in europe, but if the americans and british want turkey in EU so badly it can't be good...i prefer the franco-german lead in EU, not the anglosaxon one, so if turkey's entry shifts of balance of power towards the anlosaxon version of EU (no political unification, no military unification,just a large market and free marketing) then i am not so sure....

 

[chris eblana]

That's the bottom line, especially if it were up to the popular vote.

britain is actually FOR further EU expansion AND turkey's EU membership............check their agenda again.....

 

[barbarian]

i am not sure....turkey is a european country so it does belong in europe, but if the americans and british want turkey in EU so badly it can't be good...i prefer the franco-german lead in EU, not the anglosaxon one, so if turkey's entry shifts of balance of power towards the anlosaxon version of EU (no political unification, no military unification,just a large market and free marketing) then i am not so sure....

very nice comment. in fact, i believe germany and france believe that if turkey is in EU, then there will be an additional vote benefit for US. these days turkey is under the full control of US and i hate it.

 

[Elias2]

very nice comment. in fact, i believe germany and france believe that if turkey is in EU, then there will be an additional vote benefit for US. these days turkey is under the full control of US and i hate it.

I wouldn't mind Turkey in the EU if the passes all the chapters the other EU member did in order to get in. I'm just afraid that if turkey gets in that would mean the USA will have a say in EU politics because Britain and Turkey are "good" friends of america. I like the franco-german EU better.

I don't live in EU this is just my opinion.

 

[UndercoverSwede]

I don't believe Turkey belongs in the EU. The European Union, although strengthened through its diversity, nevertheless has certain core principles that are vital to its survival. Turkey is not compatible with these common European principles (however vague they may be), and would only disrupt and destabilise the Union. Even if people disagree with this argument, there are still the geographic, economic and political arguments to take into consideration:

Geographic: The Union cannot expand infinitely, at a certain point we must decide that the borders are large enough, and instead look internally instead of externally.

Economic: Turkey has a large agricultural sector. The agricultural subsidies is something many wish to diminish, and slowly but surely we've been seeing a steady reduction of the CAP. Turkish accession would only revitalise the subsidy and increase the amount of supporters for this outdated policy.

Politically: Turkey would become the largest country in the EU. Seeing as there are numerous controversies surrounding the country, coupled with certain dubious practices some member states don't approve of, they would suddenly have far too much political power in Europe. Furthermore the EU must be strong and adamant in it's values and political identity, Turkish accession would only weaken it.

In short, Turkey does not belong in the EU

 

[LeBrok]

very nice comment. in fact, i believe germany and france believe that if turkey is in EU, then there will be an additional vote benefit for US. these days turkey is under the full control of US and i hate it.

Can you give examples of US full control or any control over Turkey? I'm not familiar with this subject.

 

[Marianne]

Can you give examples of US full control or any control over Turkey? I'm not familiar with this subject.

I've also heard that Turkey and USA have tight relationships, because USA wants to have a critical ally in the middle east, but I don't have any significant evidence to back this up. All I know is that Turkey is supported by USA and that could be a sign

 

[Sirius2b]

Well, I see that the discussion about the entry (or not) of Turkey in the E.U. continues in this thread.

I recently read in an article of "Asia Times" that many Americans not very acquainted with what's going on in Europe, are surprised to find that islamophobia in Europe nowadays is not centered around Saudi Arabia, or even Iran but around... Turkey!!!

(One of the most westernized, modern and democratic countries of the Muslim World).



++++++++++++

The simple fact, is that as ugly as it sounds, Turkey have united most of Europe in a rejection for its entry. And discussions abut that, will continue to rage (as on the threds about Turkey in this forum), for a while, by part of the Europeans.

But now, I can say that many Europeans do not listen to what Turkey says. They believe that Turkey is continously begging to enter the E.U.. Certainly there is still many Turks that want it badly. But certainly not Erdogan, and certainly not what I consider the best part of Turkey.

The fact is that Turkey have already moved on. Done a lot of deals with Russia, Iran and China... opened a free trade agreement with its immediate surroundings.... and it payed off. Currently Turkey is growing impresively fast, and it was practically not affected by the current European economic woes.

http://www.qfinance.com/blogs/ian-fraser/2010/08/23/turkey-remains-one-of-worlds-hottest-emerging-markets-despite-fiscal-slip-up

http://www.todayszaman.com/news-224048-turkey-raises-growth-rate-target-to-68-pct-in-new-economic-program.html

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=lebanon-turkey-sign-free-trade-agreement-to-boost-ties-2010-11-25

http://www.eurasiacritic.com/articles/towards-new-era-turkey-russia-relations

(I don't know if Turkey will eventually enter the E.U. merely on a stroke of luck and sound legal arguments. So the discussion about it by the part of the Europeans and Turks, is maybe not so wasted time).

The Turks in Germany and elsewhere in Europe, are a different thing. Many have not "integrated" well in the societies in which they live... but then, "integration" here is a word with a very different content to what, for example, an American, Canadian, Australian or South America could understand. Many well educated Turks are migrating in flocks from Germany to Turkey. Unfortunately, leaving behind a minority of Turks every day more alianated by the society they live in. That has to be analized separately.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%BCrkeist%C3%A4mmige_in_Deutschland

I for my part only want to express my admiration for Erdogan and the Turkish people, for doing what they are doing, and combine a good vision with honesty to themselves.

Regards.

 

[Pro-Europe]

I don't believe Turkey belongs in the EU. The European Union, although strengthened through its diversity, nevertheless has certain core principles that are vital to its survival. Turkey is not compatible with these common European principles (however vague they may be), and would only disrupt and destabilise the Union. Even if people disagree with this argument, there are still the geographic, economic and political arguments to take into consideration:

Geographic: The Union cannot expand infinitely, at a certain point we must decide that the borders are large enough, and instead look internally instead of externally.

Economic: Turkey has a large agricultural sector. The agricultural subsidies is something many wish to diminish, and slowly but surely we've been seeing a steady reduction of the CAP. Turkish accession would only revitalise the subsidy and increase the amount of supporters for this outdated policy.

Politically: Turkey would become the largest country in the EU. Seeing as there are numerous controversies surrounding the country, coupled with certain dubious practices some member states don't approve of, they would suddenly have far too much political power in Europe. Furthermore the EU must be strong and adamant in it's values and political identity, Turkish accession would only weaken it.

In short, Turkey does not belong in the EU

First, just a short comment to this: your views seem quite interesting at some points, however they are open to just as many counterarguments:

Regarding the European principles, indeed as you say they are not easily defined, just as the Turkish are not. Therefore it is important here to look at the commonalities rather then the differences, to look at possibilities, not obstacles.

Geographically: borders are just socially constructed terms and therefore they are just an administrative problem which can be overcome.

economically: A remodeling of the Turkish agricultural sector will make it eventually functioning and therefore pay itself back. Also, as you might know, accessing countries first go trough a transitional period which already brings these changes to Turkey before it would even be possible to access.

politically: Here, I slightly agree with you, but if we want Turkey to join, it is possible to change the political structure. This debate however belongs in an overarching debate that Europe should be more democratic overall, and as such does not imply that we should lose certain values with the accession of Turkey.

The fact is that Turkey have already moved on. Done a lot of deals with Russia, Iran and China... opened a free trade agreement with its immediate surroundings.... and it payed off. Currently Turkey is growing impresively fast, and it was practically not affected by the current European economic woes.

If this is right, this would be a reason from the side of Europe to improve relations with Turkey as they then would economically gain from Turkisch accession in two ways: the widening of the market by consumers which become increasingly wealthy, and a growing produce. As for Turkey, it is not only an economic question, and they would gain from political stability and coherent frameworks offered by the EU.

what are your views on this?