Should Turkey Join the EU?

[financeguy]

Oh please, not these resolution monologues again. Could we please stick to the subject?

Fair enough. I'm happy to declare a ceasefire.

 

[Irvine511]

But will the ageing European European nations be able to maintain themselves with their cradle to grave welfare? You can only subsidise so much before your country gets tripped up.

no. i may get in trouble for this, and i hate to believe it, but i don't think socialism can work in a multicultural society. European socialism, to my understanding, is almost predicated upon citizens being almost like brothers and sisters, members of the same tribe with a shared language, religion, traditions, etc. it's much easier to be convinced to give up 50% of your income via taxes if you believe it is going to help your brothers and sisters. much harder to do if you see your money going to a family that is visibliy different from you. also, and again this is my understanding, but in a country like Denmark, a certain amount of tax $$$ goes to the Danish church. if you're Muslim, why should you be asked to pay a tithe to a tradition you don't believe in?

 

[Anthony]

An excellent point - Irvine. Why should you? And so,we revert back to one of the fundamental problems. And why should it be a problem? Are there muslims in the EU already? Of course there are, but they are still a minority in comparison to Christians and Christianity. It would be like asking a Muslim majority in the middle east to pay taxes for the Christian minorities in Egypt. Faith is yet 'another' difference and a crucial one, and anyone who refuses to accept that is, unfortunately, not assesing the problem. There is no perfect harmony between Muslim 'patches' within the EU even as we speak, let alone taking on a Muslim country substantially bigger and clearly more powerful than Bosnia. Indeed, as far as case studies go, Bosnia didn't go so well, did it?

I think the 'Turkey has a military' argument is one of the weakest yet - this is of no consequence to the EU. For lack of a better phrasing - so what? Are we to include everyone who has a substantial army in the formation of the EU? Should that be the basis for expansion? I really don't think so. If anything is certain, is that a powerful economy will help the majority of problems, and I think that solving the current economic problems within the EU and achieving not only harmonisation but actual strong economic growth is the way forward - a powerful army would be the inevitable outcome, following money.

Ant.

 

[STING2]

financeguy,


"Why then did has virtually every top legal expert, apart from those in the payroll of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Blair, said that in their judgement the war was illegal?"

Well, thats not the case. The United States and other countries had many legal experts who agreed with the legality of the war including several who actually wrote the much of the resolutions were discussing! The United States Congress, NOT on the payroll of Bush/Cheney, overwhelmingly voted for the war, and a majority of United States citizens supported the action as well.

"The main reason that there hasn't been a subsequent resolution calling for withdrawal is that there would be no point. They are in now, so they have to sort it out."

Why? If one feels the war is illegal then one should be doing everything in their power to see that those that committed the illegal action get removed from the area.

When Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1990, did the UN say, "well his military is there now, might as well let them stay there and sort it out"?






The facts of Turkey's role in NATO and the contributions made by its military over such a long period of time are powerful reasons to let Turkey into the European Union.

Turkey for decades contributed far more resources per capita to defending Europe than most of the countries that are currently members of the European Union. This is money that could have been invested in other area's

All the countries in Europe have benefited from Turkey's contribution to THEIR defense over the past 5 decades. Its about time that the EU payed its dues and let Turkey in! Because without countries like Turkey that invested a lot into the defense of Europe, Europe itself could well have been looking at Soviet Tanks on every block and be looking to meet some Communist Party production qouta from Moscow rather being capitalist and making money through stocksl, trades and other business. Life is sweet today because others sacrificed in various ways that allowed for that to happen. Defense is not cheap and Turkey has done more to defend Europe than at least half of the current EU members over 5 decades. Its time Europe payed Turkey back for that because their wealth and current state of affairs would not be possible without that. Economic growth and expansion can only take place if there is security. Without security, it is impossible.

 

[Popmartijn]

i think it is fairly obvious by now that turkey is quite a wild card in this territory. years will show if we manage to get past the EU goal to pursue something more worthwhile. cause frankly i am sick of europeans bringing up all these issues (i.e cyprus) and making the rules as they go (permanent derogations about movement) if the people of these countries are going to ride the wave of loonie right wingers from austria and france, fine. it will be a missed opportunity for both parties, but its not like turkey is gonna die because of it.

What's wrong about the issue with Cyprus? Turkey invaded part of Cyprus in the Seventies and still hasn't recognised it as being a separate state. Since Cyprus is an EU member, I don't think it's more than logical that Turkey recognises the existence of the Cypriotic state and starts to normalise their relationship with them.

C ya!

Marty

 

[all_i_want]

well the invasion was very much due to the fact that greek cypriots were slaughtering the turkish population with the help of the junta in greece at that time. turkey could not sit idle and watch the turkish cypriots eridicated.

btw, i think it is a very bad call to accept southern cyprus while the issue is still unresolved - because it was the greek cypriots who REJECTED a UN-meditated agreement, just this last year. whether you like it or not, there is a de facto state in northern cyprus - and it has been suffering because of the embargoes that has been imposed on them for the last 30 years.

now these people voted YES for a reunion, south side didnt. what did turkish cypriots do wrong? why are they still being punished cause the southerners are too greedy to share the EU membership?

those are the questions to be answered before cyprus expects any recognition from turkey. letting in cyprus was a big political error for the EU. now the issue will be unresolved for a long time because cyprus has nothing to lose.

anthony has a point, that armies alone should not determine whether a new member is admitted, but really, why does the new european army (the security initiative) want command of the turkish troops? EU countries have the economy to have stronger armies, why dont they? because less and less young people are becoming interested in pursuing a military career. although i hate to admit it, turks have always been sort of a military nation - the most trusted organization in the country has always been the army.

now, the sheer military power doesnt mean anything unless you have th economic means to support that military. turkish economy has always been in some sort of turmoil for the last decade, since we fully embraced the market economy. but now, things are stabilizing and turkey will see 10% economic growth this year alone. there is some compensation for the recession that happened a few years back, but it is still outstanding. if this kind of growth happens for a couple of more years, combined with low inflation (turkey has been a chronic case of hyper-inflation for the last decade) and low interest rates, turkish economy is bound to fully stabilize before the end of this decade, without comprimising exceptional growth rates. there are a lot of debts to be paid (IMF etc.) but we are turning around. we have been turning in strong numbers for the last couple of years. in 20 years time, if EU has not fell apart, we will hopely be questioning not if EU needs turkey, but does turkey need EU? that growth could occur a lot earlier if we were admitted into the union, but it will happen nevertheless. and everything else, human rights, education, democracy, they all follow economic growth.

also, i think time will tell if letting turkey in is a good idea or not. though, i suspect, by that time it will be too late.

 

[all_i_want]

also i dont think people should be taxed for religious services. who can dictate me to pay for someone elses faith? where is the separation of church and state in that? church should sort itself out, through donations and whatnot, and state should not sponsor any kind of religious belief. thats what i think.

also if turkey was not to be accepted for full membership because its a muslim country, how do you hope to tell the rest of the world that EU is about sharing a common ideal and set of values? you might as well admit its about christianity.

turkey was with europe on the iraq war. because we believed the same things you did. that people must not die for high profits. now if EU is gonna leave turkey in the cold eventually, they should also think about the consequences. we might as well align ourselves with US or even china (which is going to OWN this century) after all, who wants to bet on the losing side?

 

[verte76]

I generally think that letting Turkey into the EU will advance the cause of peace and human rights. Because of its goal, Turkey has greatly liberalized their laws. No one is getting arrested for writing poems about mosques, as happened to Erdogen a few years back. He had a heck of a hassle getting his record cleaned up so he could take office, all for a poem! Turkey wants to model its political system after the European democracies, not the present Muslim theocracies. If we want Iraq to become a democracy it wouldn't hurt to encourage democracy right next door.

 

[all_i_want]

btw, verte, i am very skeptic of our prime minister he just doesnt strike me as someone id like to see as the leader of my country. at least the EU negotiations will keep him on track.

 

[verte76]

This is a pretty good encyclopedia article on the various issues involved in the controversy over EU membership for Turkey.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accession_of_Turkey_to_the_European_Union

 

[verte76]

Yes, well of course Erdogan is a damned conservative politician. If I lived in Turkey most likely I would not vote for his party, I'd choose one that is more leftist and secular. He banned alcohol in public places when he was mayor of Istanbul, and there is some funding of Islamic stuff going on and some people really hate this. Since you're secular you probably do. I happen to be a practicing Catholic but I think religion should be strictly private, not part of public policy. This stuff can be a bit tricky, right now some moral controversies involving religious beliefs are going on in the political affairs of the U.S. I'd rather this stuff be more private.

 

[STING2]

well the invasion was very much due to the fact that greek cypriots were slaughtering the turkish population with the help of the junta in greece at that time. turkey could not sit idle and watch the turkish cypriots eridicated.

btw, i think it is a very bad call to accept southern cyprus while the issue is still unresolved - because it was the greek cypriots who REJECTED a UN-meditated agreement, just this last year. whether you like it or not, there is a de facto state in northern cyprus - and it has been suffering because of the embargoes that has been imposed on them for the last 30 years.

now these people voted YES for a reunion, south side didnt. what did turkish cypriots do wrong? why are they still being punished cause the southerners are too greedy to share the EU membership?

those are the questions to be answered before cyprus expects any recognition from turkey. letting in cyprus was a big political error for the EU. now the issue will be unresolved for a long time because cyprus has nothing to lose.

anthony has a point, that armies alone should not determine whether a new member is admitted, but really, why does the new european army (the security initiative) want command of the turkish troops? EU countries have the economy to have stronger armies, why dont they? because less and less young people are becoming interested in pursuing a military career. although i hate to admit it, turks have always been sort of a military nation - the most trusted organization in the country has always been the army.

now, the sheer military power doesnt mean anything unless you have th economic means to support that military. turkish economy has always been in some sort of turmoil for the last decade, since we fully embraced the market economy. but now, things are stabilizing and turkey will see 10% economic growth this year alone. there is some compensation for the recession that happened a few years back, but it is still outstanding. if this kind of growth happens for a couple of more years, combined with low inflation (turkey has been a chronic case of hyper-inflation for the last decade) and low interest rates, turkish economy is bound to fully stabilize before the end of this decade, without comprimising exceptional growth rates. there are a lot of debts to be paid (IMF etc.) but we are turning around. we have been turning in strong numbers for the last couple of years. in 20 years time, if EU has not fell apart, we will hopely be questioning not if EU needs turkey, but does turkey need EU? that growth could occur a lot earlier if we were admitted into the union, but it will happen nevertheless. and everything else, human rights, education, democracy, they all follow economic growth.

also, i think time will tell if letting turkey in is a good idea or not. though, i suspect, by that time it will be too late.

Vast economic power means nothing if you are unable to defend it. Turkey has played a huge role in protecting Europe during the Cold War and without this security and security provided by others through NATO, the economic success that the EU enjoys today would not be possible. The EU would not exist if Germany still controlled Europe or if Soviets had taken over Europe. Turkey played a huge role in defending Europe from Soviet Aggression. They invested heavily in defense where as several European countries in the EU today did NOT! Simply put, the EU owes Turkey for its service during the Cold War.

In addition, it makes no sense on any level, to let a country like Romania in, but keep Turkey out.

 

[namkcuR]

My mother is Turkish, she spent the first two decades of her life there. That makes me half-Turkish. I'll give one guess what I say.

I say yes. Don't tell me they should associate with their own region. Their own region is Iraq/Iran/Saudi Arabia/Pakistan/etc. You know what makes Turkey different from the aforementioned countries? It is secular, thanks to the great Mustafa Kamal Ataturk. That is a big reason why there isn't terrorism there in the way it is in the countries surrounding Turkey. That this country has survived all these years, right in the middle of a cluster of countries which for who knows how long has had bloodshed in one form or another, without becoming a prominent or lasting part of it, to me is something that should be applauded. And to me, that record of not allowing that kind of terrorism/war/bloodshed in, when it extraordinarly easily could have, is reason enough to let them in, or at least A reason.

 

[financeguy]

financeguy,


"Why then did has virtually every top legal expert, apart from those in the payroll of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Blair, said that in their judgement the war was illegal?"

Well, thats not the case. The United States and other countries had many legal experts who agreed with the legality of the war including several who actually wrote the much of the resolutions were discussing! The United States Congress, NOT on the payroll of Bush/Cheney, overwhelmingly voted for the war, and a majority of United States citizens supported the action as well.

"The main reason that there hasn't been a subsequent resolution calling for withdrawal is that there would be no point. They are in now, so they have to sort it out."

Why? If one feels the war is illegal then one should be doing everything in their power to see that those that committed the illegal action get removed from the area.

When Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1990, did the UN say, "well his military is there now, might as well let them stay there and sort it out".

I never said anything about the US Congress or US people. With all due respect to the views of US Congress and US people, their views are not material to deciding on the strict legality or otherwise of the war on Iraq.

Yes there were legal experts who came up with a rationale for justifying the war - however the balance of legal experts, taking left wing, right wing and everything else into consideration was very strongly against the war, although people like Fox news will probably try and claim otherwise!

 

[Earnie Shavers]

I never said anything about the US Congress or US people. With all due respect to the views of US Congress and US people, their views are not material to deciding on the strict legality or otherwise of the war on Iraq.

Yes there were legal experts who came up with a rationale for justifying the war - however the balance of legal experts, taking left wing, right wing and everything else into consideration was very strongly against the war, although people like Fox news will probably try and claim otherwise!

The legality thing can go either way from those resolutions. They're not exactly written in complicated wording, even the more hardcore ones aren't that explicit, leave themselves way open for interpretation. The argument is, were they at the point where military action was to be taken. There was no formal timeline. There was nothing in those resolutions that had, I guess, a checklist there. Some (US) firmly believed it was time (most likely based on their military timetable). Some (UK, Australia) firmly believed they needed another, more specific resolution spelling these things out clearly. Some (France, Russia, Germany) believed that the immediately previous resolution had not run it's course, that the action specified in there was not at it's conclusion and so therefore any action, any further resolution was not needed. Of course we know what happened next....

 

[financeguy]

Well I think the problem is we're now tying ourselves in legal knots and this is partly my fault as I was the one that originally raised the legality issue here.

Basically for me it comes down to a question of right or wrong, and to be the Iraq invasion was not justifiable on ethical, moral or military grounds. That's my take on the subject, take it or leave it!

 

[A_Wanderer]

This is irrelevant - keep telling yourself your on the right side, keep making out like only idiot Fox News watching individuals are "pro-War" and leave the Turkey/EU discussion a Turkey/EU discussion.

 

[financeguy]

I don't need to "tell myself" anything dude I just know. If you thought my post above was patronising it's a good thing I didn't post the first draft of it, that's all I can say.

 

[A_Wanderer]

What about the future use of Turkey in the context of Missile Defence? The technology is in its infancy but should we see a workable system the European Union will no doubt be interested in aquiring something simmilar, considering its strategic location could that be a reason to include Turkey?

 

[Anthony]

If you're going to talk about the illegality of the War in Iraq, there's an entire forum dedicated to it, there. Its no good trying to accuse another one of derailing a thread and then baiting each other about it.

The thread is about Turkey's membership in the EU. Please keep it in mind.

Ant.

 

[verte76]

My mother is Turkish, she spent the first two decades of her life there. That makes me half-Turkish. I'll give one guess what I say.

I say yes. Don't tell me they should associate with their own region. Their own region is Iraq/Iran/Saudi Arabia/Pakistan/etc. You know what makes Turkey different from the aforementioned countries? It is secular, thanks to the great Mustafa Kamal Ataturk. That is a big reason why there isn't terrorism there in the way it is in the countries surrounding Turkey. That this country has survived all these years, right in the middle of a cluster of countries which for who knows how long has had bloodshed in one form or another, without becoming a prominent or lasting part of it, to me is something that should be applauded. And to me, that record of not allowing that kind of terrorism/war/bloodshed in, when it extraordinarly easily could have, is reason enough to let them in, or at least A reason.

Very well said, I couldn't agree more.

 

[STING2]

I never said anything about the US Congress or US people. With all due respect to the views of US Congress and US people, their views are not material to deciding on the strict legality or otherwise of the war on Iraq.

Yes there were legal experts who came up with a rationale for justifying the war - however the balance of legal experts, taking left wing, right wing and everything else into consideration was very strongly against the war, although people like Fox news will probably try and claim otherwise!

Well, thats simply not the case and any study of the resolutions and the work done to disarm Iraq prior to the war shows that. There were certainly many legal experts out there who were against the war, but THEY do not sit on the security council and THEY do not ultimately decide whether something is legal or not!

If you or any "legal expert" believes that the resolutions did not authorize military action in 2003, then you cannot say that the the resolutions passed in 1990 legally authorized the the 1991 Gulf War either. Both resolutions have the same general language.

Not only are there three different resolutions authorizing the March 2003 Operation Iraqi Freedom, but there have been three different UN security council resolutions authorizing the coalition occupation!

If the military action was illegal, why would UN members approve the occupation that resulted from it? Did you see the UN approving Saddam's occupation of Kuwait in 1990?

Where is the UN resolution that condemns the 2003 invasion of Iraq? Where is the UN resolution that calls for the withdrawal of coalition troops for the "illegal occupation" of Iraq?

Because of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and its brutal rape and occupation of that country, after the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam was required to verifiably disarm of all of his WMD, return Kuwaiti citizens, repair the damage he had done to Kuwait and the Gulf, just to name a few things.

Because of Saddam's passed behavior, Saddam was required to comply with all the resolutions or faced renewed military action. Any other system that did not allow for immediate military action in the face of non-compliance would ultimately fail, given Saddam's prior behavior.

Saddam failed to verifiably disarm and member states of the UN took the appropriate action and insured that Saddam's regime was disarmed per the resolutions.

Finally, we have a set of UN resolutions that were actually enforced and its a good thing, because the UN would be meaningless if it could not even enforce its most serious resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules threatening the use of military force if resolutions were not complied with.

There are plenty of UN documents and resolutions explaining and showing Saddam's violations of UN resolutions but there is not a single UN document or resolution that actually says that Operation Iraqi freedom was illegal in any way.

 

[Salome]

hmmm turkey