International News

[elendil]

Originally Posted by Jade View Post
I'm aware of the growing control of the military over Turkey. And I will not say that I'm happy about it - yet, suppose the military had given up it's large influence over the government, where would the government head? - in which direction? and would that direction be a positive one regarding Turkey's future? (of course "positive" would mean different things to everyone, for me "positive" means more secular and democratic) I think that what most "nationalistic" Turks fear is that without the influence of the military over the government, Turkey might end up something like Iran in the future. If they support the military, that is I believe is their main reason for doing so. For fear of AKP... But then again I might be hugely mistaken. I've yet to read more concerning this delicate issue and can only comment from what I've been gathering from here and there and using logic. So I look forward to what the members of this forum have to say regarding this issue...Open for opinions so to speak.

Many of the leftist analysis will always state that Turkey moves around a circle, always experiencing the same problems, the same changes over and over again. The problem of identity, the problem of militaristic state, the problem of diminishing democracy and human rights. When facism or extereme nationalism (naturally) fails, in Turkey it is not left that fills the void but religion or to be more spesific, muslimhood. Islamist, nationalist, islamist, nationalist and so on and on. This circle of static interests and benefits kept Turkey the same in regards of social changes for decades.

But left misses the fact that there are three dimensions for movement. Turkey does not move in a circle but rather a spiral. While growing economically and technically it experiences the same social problems and ossicilates between right wings of politics. This kind of movement is also part of the doctrine of pro-American politics which is born from cold war doctrine green-belt which was formed to stop the communist influence of Soviet Union within the context of Islamic brotherhood.

At the axis z which is economy and military power we are growing. But at the axis x and y there is a circle or rather an elliptic circle where the radius can change as long as it does not touch the legitimatecy of Turkish state or army.

The constant changing variables of x and y due to the nature of elliptic circle
are within respect to each other when one reaches its peak the other gains momentum once again. Therefore the left side is left out in the cold and simply can not intervene with the politics and economy of the country.

What does happen when the radius reaches the border of validity? Coup...

As to where goverment would lead if army does not influence them? Simple, a light form of Islamic republic in Turkey. Advantages and disadvantages could be discussed but that is the road they would be taking.

Why nationalist side supports army? One must look to Turkey's and Turk's past while analyzing the unwavering support for the army. Army has found Turkey. Army has freed Turkey. Army brought modernity and deterministic way of thinking to Turkey. Army enforced revolutions. We, Turks were an army before we were a people. We Turks were in ranks before we were in the fields working. Army is important for us, army is us.

And then of course nationalism has a desire to become powerful or to be the piece of the powerful. One can also offer a symmetry of facism's fancy of power directly. But with us, relations with the army goes much deeper that that.

Islamic threat is of course a serious cause of sympathy for Turkish army but is is hardly one.

[bell-the-cat]

I'm aware of the growing control of the military over Turkey. And I will not say that I'm happy about it - yet, suppose the military had given up it's large influence over the government, where would the government head? - in which direction? and would that direction be a positive one regarding Turkey's future? (of course "positive" would mean different things to everyone, for me "positive" means more secular and democratic) I think that what most "nationalistic" Turks fear is that without the influence of the military over the government, Turkey might end up something like Iran in the future. If they support the military, that is I believe is their main reason for doing so. For fear of AKP... But then again I might be hugely mistaken. I've yet to read more concerning this delicate issue and can only comment from what I've been gathering from here and there and using logic. So I look forward to what the members of this forum have to say regarding this issue...Open for opinions so to speak.

And it is women in Turkey who will loose the most if an overtly Islamist party manages to take longterm control of Turkey.

I've just watched a half-hour TV program about current Turkish politics that, as usual, mischaracterised the marches as being those of "nationalists". And, being made by a bunch of BBC journalists, "nationalist" is of course always presented as a negative thing.
Its creators clearly couldn't be bothered to learn anything about events in Turkey beyond that simplified surface. But, given that the EU seems equally incapable, I suppose it is not surprising. Sometimes I think the EU liberal cabbage-heads would be more happy seeing Turkey became a repressive Islamic fundamentalist state than see a few generals speak out in public.

[bell-the-cat]

My objection to turkey's accession to the EU is not based on turkey per se, but that the EU has become too large and cumbersome and , because of the general indifference to the EU from the bulk of the population in most states, the MEPs tend to be elected nearly by default, Euro elections have very small turnouts and this EU parliament is making policies with very wide-ranging implications. turkey, also any other new member states, would simply add to this,"democracy on it's a*s" situation.

The horror! I now find myself agreeing with Steph on two occasions in the same day!"

[Steph]

I agree with 1.5. If Turkey was to fulfill all the requirements by the EU then they should be able to join but to be perfectly honest with you, the only reason I feel that way is because I doubt they will fulfill these requirements.
The EU currently has enough problems. I don't see how adding Turkey or any new nations for that matter will help their agenda (whatever that agenda might be).

My objection to turkey's accession to the EU is not based on turkey per se, but that the EU has become too large and cumbersome and , because of the general indifference to the EU from the bulk of the population in most states, the MEPs tend to be elected nearly by default, Euro elections have very small turnouts and this EU parliament is making policies with very wide-ranging implications. turkey, also any other new member states, would simply add to this,"democracy on it's a*s" situation.

[Jade]

I agree with 1.5. If Turkey was to fulfill all the requirements by the EU then they should be able to join but to be perfectly honest with you, the only reason I feel that way is because I doubt they will fulfill these requirements. In some ways Turkey in the EU would probably help to liberalize them but then again Turkey may use its membership to entirely hijak EU policy altogether with their giant uneducated population and military.

The Turkish military will never give up control. The Turks will at some point invade N. Iraq. The Turks will never relinquish their out-dated mode of ultra-nationalism that most Europeans despise and nationalism will indeed continue to rise in Turkey. The Turks will continue to do things that anger their neighbors, etc.

Furthermore, I believe it is wrong (and perhaps counterproductive to Turkeys EU aspirations) the US continues to push for Turkey's EU acceptance.

The EU currently has enough problems. I don't see how adding Turkey or any new nations for that matter will help their agenda (whatever that agenda might be).

I'm aware of the growing control of the military over Turkey. And I will not say that I'm happy about it - yet, suppose the military had given up it's large influence over the government, where would the government head? - in which direction? and would that direction be a positive one regarding Turkey's future? (of course "positive" would mean different things to everyone, for me "positive" means more secular and democratic) I think that what most "nationalistic" Turks fear is that without the influence of the military over the government, Turkey might end up something like Iran in the future. If they support the military, that is I believe is their main reason for doing so. For fear of AKP... But then again I might be hugely mistaken. I've yet to read more concerning this delicate issue and can only comment from what I've been gathering from here and there and using logic. So I look forward to what the members of this forum have to say regarding this issue...Open for opinions so to speak.

[Joseph]

I've highlighted some particularly interesting parts. I almost hope something happens.

http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=74264

WHAT OTHERS SAY

Monday, May 28, 2007


Turkish and American troops on the border

Fikret Bila

Tension is running high on the Iraqi border. While the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK) are considerably increasing its presence at the border, they are also intensifying exercises. Operations continue against the outlawed terrorist organization Kurdish Workers' Party (PKK) in the regions near the border. American troops and ?peshmerge?, Iraqi fighters of the President of the Autonomous Kurdish Government in Iraq Massoud Barzani, are also in action. They are getting prepared for a possible cross border operation from Turkey. Barzani forces are digging trenches across the regions where Turkish soldiers are deployed. Coming to Zaho, the U.S. helicopters follow military moves and Turkish reconnaissance flights over the region.



Unmanned vehicles gather intelligence

Has the United States been collecting intelligence via unmanned air vehicles for a while?

There are some serious rumors that U.S. soldiers are gathering information along the Iraq-Turkey border and with unmanned vehicles cross the Turkish border from time to time.

Americans are trying to monitor where Turkish military units are deployed and what their moves are. Barzani's men are also dispatched against a possible TSK operation.

With every chance it has, the United States expresses its objection to a cross border operation by Turkey. As U.S. troops are lately active around the border, the expectation is that Washington will stick to its objection and use military means if necessary.

If Turkish and American troops ? NATO friends and allies ? encountered each other at the border, this would be something dead serious. And would clarify the U.S. political stance. Such a picture will fuel anti-Americanism in Turkish public opinion.



Political will

It has been argued in Ankara for some time whether or not there is a difference of opinion between the government and the TSK. Chief of General Staff Gen. Ya?ar Büyükan?t declared earlier that a cross border operation will be helpful, but said the decision rests with the political authority. Upon latest developments, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdo?an announced that if the General Staff demanded so, they would make the necessary decision. Foreign Minister Abdullah Gül voiced the same opinion as well.

If there is no other way out, the decision of course will be made in accordance with the Constitution. In addition to its domestic law, Turkey has international legal rights, which it will resort to in order to safeguard its international legitimacy. However, it has been felt that the government is not willing much in the matter. It is trying to stay in accord with the United States on northern Iraq policy, seeking a solution through dialogue with Barzani. Neither Washington nor Barzani's administration share in the approaches of the Turkish government.



President's authority

The Turkish Parliament decided to have general elections. What if there is a loophole when internal laws authorize a military operation, after the parliament is closed? Experts say that the 2nd clause of the Article 92 in the Constitution does not allow any loopholes. The clause states that the authority to govern the TSK rests with the President in the event that using military force is inevitable and the country is under a sudden attack while the Parliament has adjourned or is in recess.



Issue of perpetuity

The last thing Washington and Ankara want is an engagement between Turkish and American troops. Even when the U.S. forces captured Turkish soldiers, in what is now known as the ?hood event? in 2003 in northern Iraq, both sides refrained from a clash. An engagement between the oldest and the biggest NATO powers could create a tremendous crisis. However, Washington needs to understand the problem Turkey faces. The issue for Turkey is not just the PKK. Turkey's strategic priority is first to prevent the formation of an independent Kurdish state in northern Iraq and the status of Kirkuk in this context and then the PKK. Turkey regards these developments particularly in this order as an ?issue of perpetuity?. The atmosphere in Ankara is such that if this problem becomes an issue of perpetuity, all calculations will change.

[Joseph]

1.5, for what reasons would you like to see turkey as part of the EU?
I'm really interested to hear others arguments regarding this, as I consider that already the EU has become too large and disparate for it's own good.
Perhaps if it continues to expand, it needs a fundamental re-organisation.

Do you see a future where all of Europe is part of the EU? Including, of course, Russia? Perhaps that would be too idealistic and utopian.
Is turkey really part of Europe? Or a bridge between the mainly Christian West and mainly Islamic East?
turkey should be admitted, or not, on it's own merits and not for strategic reasons.

I agree with 1.5. If Turkey was to fulfill all the requirements by the EU then they should be able to join but to be perfectly honest with you, the only reason I feel that way is because I doubt they will fulfill these requirements. In some ways Turkey in the EU would probably help to liberalize them but then again Turkey may use its membership to entirely hijak EU policy altogether with their giant uneducated population and military.

The Turkish military will never give up control. The Turks will at some point invade N. Iraq. The Turks will never relinquish their out-dated mode of ultra-nationalism that most Europeans despise and nationalism will indeed continue to rise in Turkey. The Turks will continue to do things that anger their neighbors, etc.

Furthermore, I believe it is wrong (and perhaps counterproductive to Turkeys EU aspirations) the US continues to push for Turkey's EU acceptance.

The EU currently has enough problems. I don't see how adding Turkey or any new nations for that matter will help their agenda (whatever that agenda might be).

[Steph]

- I would fully welcome Turkey into the EU (if I was European or just that I support the idea of Turkey into the EU - but not as is etc). I want to see Turkey as part of the EU - for everyone's benefit. But I see a great danger in relaxing standards just to allow Turkey in because it is ultimatly the best thing for everyone.

1.5, for what reasons would you like to see turkey as part of the EU?
I'm really interested to hear others arguments regarding this, as I consider that already the EU has become too large and disparate for it's own good.
Perhaps if it continues to expand, it needs a fundamental re-organisation.

Do you see a future where all of Europe is part of the EU? Including, of course, Russia? Perhaps that would be too idealistic and utopian.
Is turkey really part of Europe? Or a bridge between the mainly Christian West and mainly Islamic East?
turkey should be admitted, or not, on it's own merits and not for strategic reasons.

[1.5 million]

You think too much like a politician - are you sure you're not one? - very sly indeed...and here the poor Turks honestly think they stand a chance while the majority of the European Union leaders adopt such an approach...Suppose Turkey were to fulfill all requirements? What would they say then? Come up with a new requirement? I think yes.

If the Turks were to fulfil the requirements - and I believe that these requirements are in fact necessary and not just an excuse - then I would fully welcome Turkey into the EU (if I was European or just that I support the idea of Turkey into the EU - but not as is etc). However I do view the need for Turkey to truly be democratic (ie not under military control and not with a restrictive press and archaic laws preventing freedom of speech/expression etc) and of course this includes recognition [and certainly not supression] of the facts pertaining to the Armenian Genocide as a full and necessary part of this). I want to see Turkey as part of the EU - for everyone's benefit. But I see a great danger in relaxing standards just to allow Turkey in because it is ultimatly the best thing for everyone. While certainly these criteria are seen by many as a way to prevent Turkey from joining I don't see it that way. And it is the Turks (elites and reactionaies) themselves who will truly use these criteria as an excuse not to join and then blame the Eurpeans for racism. And in fact (many of) the Turkish elites don't want to really join the Eu as it will comprimise their power and control.

[bell-the-cat]

You think too much like a politician - are you sure you're not one? - very sly indeed...and here the poor Turks honestly think they stand a chance while the majority of the European Union leaders adopt such an approach...Suppose Turkey were to fulfill all requirements? What would they say then? Come up with a new requirement? I think yes.

My thoughts exactly. Almost all of the requirements that the EU had been demanding of Turkey, Turkey should have been trying to fulfill anyway - because they will be for the benefit of the people of Turkey regardless of Turkish EU membership.
The constant linking of necessary reforms in Turkey with Turkish membership of the EU (something which now, I think, has no realistic chance of happening) has meant that the true value of those reforms are being undermined and the risk of a reactionary backlash against them has been increased. However, the main culprits of this are Turkish politicians, not EU leaders.