Should Turkey Be Allowed To Join EU? - Page 6

Bereta_Eder · December 14, 2002, 05:34

Personally I think that #1 was the most fair and just.

#2 had..."political" considerations in it.

Mainly to encourage Turkey to do something.

But I agree with you. 2004 is too soon for Turkey to have made changes it hasn't made for hundrends of years.

Bereta_Eder · December 14, 2002, 05:43

BTW Turkish air space violations of Greek air space have increased by 300% in 2002.

Some change of attitude Rufus...

And if they don't agree with the sea and air frontiers why aren't they going with us to the Hague International Court of Justice and have the whole thing sorted out as we proposed?

Some changes...

Pekka · December 14, 2002, 05:54

It would be fun to watch when Turkey joins EU and it keeps 'violating' each other with Greece

.
I can't imagine that inside the EU though.. I guess they would just stop..

Bereta_Eder · December 14, 2002, 05:55

Stop violating us

And it's about oil which is in Greek territorial waters and Turkey wants it.

It's not all fun and games though 'cause Greek fighters intercept the Turkish violating! ones and there are dogfights...

With armed planes.

Rufus T. Firefly · December 14, 2002, 06:02

We're in agreement about Turkey's fitness for the EU, paiktis. My only objection is that I think the EU has, in trying to be "diplomatic," been deliberately misleading about what it expected of the Turks, and I think that's shameful.

I also think there's a paradox here: Turkey isn't democratic enough to join the EU, but the one thing likely to bring true democracy to Turkey is EU membership. I don't know how to get around that conundrum.

BTW, you misspoke, as did I in agreeing with you: the original Franco-German proposal did not pass. That proposal mandated a review in 2004, with talks to start in 2005 if the review was successful. What passed was a proposal forr a review in 2004, period. This will be read at home as further indifference and manipulation from the EU; I hope I'm wrong, but I would expect the drive for EU membership to lose a lot of support under these conditions -- much more than it would have lost under the F-G proposal.

Pekka · December 14, 2002, 06:03

Nah, they are just playing with you guys..
It's like a boy who hits a girl.. he likes her, but he doesn't know how to approach her.

Bereta_Eder · December 14, 2002, 06:07

Pekka, too bad for the Turks we're not into that S&M thing

Rufus, yes the original Franco - German proposal was for 2005. Apparently, there was a change during the "dinner" of the «15». (They call it dinner but it's the #1 negotiating forum of the Summit)

Pekka · December 14, 2002, 06:11

I'm sure once Turkey gets into EU, we will see a heart warming boy love first time action..

.

Rufus T. Firefly · December 14, 2002, 06:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Pekka
Nah, they are just playing with you guys..
It's like a boy who hits a girl.. he likes her, but he doesn't know how to approach her.

Though from the Turk point of view, it's like wanting to date a girl,and finding out that she has a different excuse for not going out with you every time you call. Eventually, you get the message and stop calling.

Bereta_Eder · December 14, 2002, 06:15

In the same motive, there was a scandal breaking out in Turkey when it was discovered by some newspaper that Greece is the main exporter of SPERM to Turkey and Turkey the most feverous importer. (for artificial conception (sp?)

I knew that foreign relations were a bunch of w@nkeries but this is really pushing to envelop

Pekka · December 14, 2002, 06:16

Greece, You Bi***!

.

Ok I'm off to bed now, it's 12.20 am and I haven't got any sleep yet..

Bereta_Eder · December 14, 2002, 06:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly

Though from the Turk point of view, it's like wanting to date a girl,and finding out that she has a different excuse for not going out with you every time you call. Eventually, you get the message and stop calling.

Well if they want to date Greece/Europe they should indeed stop "calling" that way and get their act together...

We're tired of "threats" of war if something doesn't go their way because of their own fault.

Put up or shut up.

ahem

Bereta_Eder · December 14, 2002, 06:27

Even though I have to admit that the struggle of its army with its political government is taking its toll.

Example: Turkey had threatened to anex the occupied part of Cyprus if the free part would enter the EU.Now it doesn't say that.

But the increase in air space violations and the fact that Cyprus is still occupied are not "appreciated" to say the least.

Permit me to worry about these first and let my european counterparts worry about Turkey's human rights record. (not that I don't, but priorities).

MarkG · December 14, 2002, 08:46

rufus,

i'm not intending to do a lecture on you, but passing the copenhangen criteria doesnt mean just passing laws, but also implementing them and being a democratic country with basic human rights. even on passing laws, i believe some of them were passed this week and there are a few more left. the only thing that is for certain implemented is the removal of the death penalty.

in the very end, the winner of the recent elections can not become the prime minister because of a poem!

meanwhile, the greek defence minister meets with the turk, complains again for the air violations and the turk responds: "i'll check out(with the generals) what's going on and get back to you"

DeepO · December 14, 2002, 09:40

Quote:

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
Ok, where is our Hawai ? Cyprus ?

No Malta. What did you think, the EU want them in for their sunny climate? Those tiny islands controls the Mediterean, more than Sicily or Cyprus.

DeepO

DeepO · December 14, 2002, 09:54

Besides, I think Turkey should be allowed to join, later. First they need to clear up a few things, like stopping the torture and oppression of the Kurds. Economical they aren't the best country to join, but I'm confident that that can change fast.

I agree that having a country join that has 80m people can be a bit scary, but the possible advantages are too great: first of all, it would certainly be an asset to have a Muslim state in the EU, as long as it is not a Sharia-state. Strategically, Turkey is important (otherwise the US would not be interested at all), it could help in closer relations between the Arab world and the Western world.

It's just the lack of democracy and the oppression that is my biggest turn-off, and we all know that if civil wars aren't resolved before joining the EU, they won't be resolved afterwards either... look at Northern Ireland, or the ETA to see some fine examples.

DeepO

Saint Marcus · December 14, 2002, 09:59

Quote:

it would certainly be an asset to have a Muslim state in the EU

there are other muslim states that we can ask, like Albania (or Bosnia).

our_man · December 14, 2002, 10:20

Here's the major concern I would have with letting Turkey into the EU, and yes it's a concern about Islam. From what I've seen and know about Turkey (having been there once), the reason why it's one of the most democratic Muslim countries in the world is because it suppresses Islam. The leader of the party who won the Turkish elections cannot become Prime Minister due to some speech he gave which was overly religious. A Muslim has more freedom of religion in London or Paris than he/she has in Turkey, and you can see some of the problems that are being caused in these cities because of it.

While their laws seem too restrictive to me with regard to this matter, perhaps they are neccesary to keep Turkey as a democracy (albeit a poor one). Who is to say what will happen if once they join the EU, they are no longer allowed to supress Islam - is it not a valid concern that all of the Islamic fundamentalists shall come out of the closet and seek to exert their power with no-one willing to restrain them? And in a country like Turkey, might they not find enough people willing to listen to their message of hate?

DeepO · December 14, 2002, 10:29

Oh, sure, and they can join too if they get their things together. But none would send such a big message as allowing Turkey, allowing an extra 80m Muslims would silence all 'EU is a Christian stronghold' complaints. It isn't true, but people seem to think that the EU is based on religious convictions, while we already have millions of Muslims living here. Albania, with its limited population wouldn't make much of a difference.

Besides, Albania is not Arabic (granted, Turkey is the least of the Arabic countries too), and I would consider it a good thing if we could get some better contacts with the Arabs. Maybe we can help some of the problems of that region of the world, without having to extort, and pressure them like the US tries too. In my mind, the EU was not formed for purely economical reasons, it does not have as sole purpose enrichment of the member states, it has a humanitarian role as well. Allowing Turkey in would be a good move in this regard, even if I fully agree they have to clean up their act before they should be allowed.

DeepO

DeepO · December 14, 2002, 10:37

our_man, I don't fully agree. Under European law, you need to follow quite a few general laws, which means that fundamental law changes in Turkey would be forbidden. They couldn't implement Sharia law, as it defies the separation of Church and state. Okay, maybe they are oppressing some parts of the Islam as you put it, but in Belgium this happens too: priests, bishops and the like can't be part of the government either.

Erdohan was indeed convicted for speaking fundamentally, but this is the same as our racist laws: the moment we would convict our exterme right party of advocating racism, or any other serious crime, they would be forbidden in Belgium too (there are currently a few trials in this respect). I would consider that a good thing, and can't be viewed as a suppression of belief, only of extremism.

DeepO

Saint Marcus · December 14, 2002, 10:45

Quote:

Besides, Albania is not Arabic (granted, Turkey is the least of the Arabic countries too)

Turkey isn't arab.

Saint Marcus · December 14, 2002, 10:48

Quote:

Albania, with its limited population wouldn't make much of a difference.

Doesn't matter. It is a muslim nation, and if we adopt it into our union, it shows the EU isn't a christian only club.

Albania has a poor economy though, and it still has a long way to go before they can join, but the country itself is a lot more European than Turkey (apart from Istanbul).

Bereta_Eder · December 14, 2002, 10:48

Actually the Arab world already has a very good relationship with Europe, in general (compared to the US or even Turkey)

DeepO · December 14, 2002, 11:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
Turkey isn't arab.

Okay, I said that too, but they are at least a whole lot closer than Albania, language being one of the common things here. (and yes, I know it is Turkish, but as long as most Arabs are able to understand it to a certain extent, it is common)

And I agree that the Arab world has a good relation to Europe already, but I wouldn't mind solidifying it. Besides, Turkey might in some views not be European, it does come close, or at least close enough for me so that won't be a reason to refuse them. It's the suppresion, and democratic problems I am worried about. Morroco would make a second candidate for me, even if the same kind of problems are certainly an issue there.

Strategically, the biggest reason for me to try to get Turkey in line with the EU policy, and let them join is that otherwise there is a chance that in the coming years we'll see the forming of an Arab Union too, and I don't think that would be such a good idea for world politics. I wouldn't mind at all if a few of those countries join the EU, as long as there are clear guidelines of what is allowed, and there is a big change over how the EU now deals with world politic, and with member state identities. Call me a utopian, but I'd like it very much if the EU would be the starting ground for a world government (in 50 years or so). It certainly won't come from the US, nor the UN...

DeepO

Rufus T. Firefly · December 15, 2002, 09:20

Quote:

Originally posted by MarkG
rufus,

i'm not intending to do a lecture on you, but passing the copenhangen criteria doesnt mean just passing laws, but also implementing them and being a democratic country with basic human rights. even on passing laws, i believe some of them were passed this week and there are a few more left. the only thing that is for certain implemented is the removal of the death penalty.

in the very end, the winner of the recent elections can not become the prime minister because of a poem!

meanwhile, the greek defence minister meets with the turk, complains again for the air violations and the turk responds: "i'll check out(with the generals) what's going on and get back to you"

Don't tell me, tell the Turks. But also tell the EU, which was overly-encouraging on this point; Turkey was encouraged to believe that passing the laws would get them a date for talks -- not automatic ascension, mind you, just a date.

I'm not saying Turkey deserves to be in the EU, or even deserves a date in its current condition; it doesn't deserve either. But I think the EU is culpable in having raised Turkey's hopes needlessly,and having failed to be completely forthright about what was going to be expected -- not just ultimately, but at every intermediate stage. If the EU wanted to monitor the implementation of the Copenhagen laws for 2 years (an excellent and understandable idea), then they should have told the Turks so up front; they never did. Brussels' politicians and bureaucrats were just a bit spineless and weaselly. Perhaps I'm foolish to draw attention to that -- what politicians and bureaucrats aren't, right? -- but I think it needs saying.

In sum, I think the EU made the right decision about Turkey (or almost right; the Franco-German proposal, with its conditional date, would have been better than no date at all). But I also think that Turkey has a legitimate right to be disappointed at the way it was strung along. I don't see those two positions as contradictory.