EU-Turkey: A Full Membership Or A "Privileged Partnership?"

[Siamanto]

G�nd�z Aktan: Realities and politics (3)

TDN
Tuesday, June 21, 2005

OPINIONS

The Justice and Development Party government has done all that had to be
done regarding our European Union membership. It is not responsible for
the current impasse. Although ambassadors of EU countries in Ankara have
directed their criticism at the government, this does not change the
fact that the problems in our EU membership process stem entirely from
the EU side.

G�nd�z AKTAN The Justice and Development Party (AKP) government has
done all that had to be done regarding our European Union membership. It
is not responsible for the current impasse. Although ambassadors of EU
countries in Ankara have directed their criticism at the government,
this does not change the fact that the problems in our EU membership
process stem entirely from the EU side.

The �anti-Turkish� attitudes in EU countries stem from a variety of
reasons: Turkey is very big, very populous, not fully developed,
situated in an unstable region, etc. We all know about these. The point
is that these factors were in existence in 1999 when the EU decided to
make us a candidate country.

Turkey took highly advanced steps towards EU membership during the
term of the 57th government, though it was no secret that the latter was
hardly passionate about EU membership. After a �package of measures� was
adopted in August 2002, the ambassador of the country that served as the
EU term president at the time said (speaking at a meeting at the Middle
East Technical University [ODTU] chaired by Mr. Sukru Elekdag) that if,
in the wake of that package, progress were to be made on the Cyprus
issue as well, the EU side would start accession talks with Turkey.

The fact that a date for the start of negotiations has been given only
belatedly has nothing to do with the Cyprus issue. The EU countries'
tendency to see Turkish membership as a pipe dream was brought to an end
when the accession process actually began. By making the reforms sought
by the EU quickly and more than adequately, the government has refuted
the argument that Turkey would never be able to adjust itself to the EU.
Also, it has taken, regarding Cyprus, the kind of risky steps no
previous Turkish government had dared and removed the Cyprus issue as an
obstacle to Turkish membership in the EU.

Thus the EU ran out of excuses. There was the argument, �The reforms
are very well but it is the implementation that counts,� but that could
hardly constitute an obstacle to the start of the negotiations. It was
at this point the true nature of the objections to Turkish membership
came to be revealed: The Copenhagen political criteria were not so
important. The important thing was that Turks did not belong to the
European culture, that is, to the European religion.

When Turkey applied for full membership in 1987, it was seen that
prejudices against Turkey constituted the biggest obstacle to Turkish
membership. Former President Turgut Ozal's book, �Turkey in Europe,�
addressed these prejudices.

At that time we still believed that Europe was thinking in that vein
because we had failed to adequately acquaint Europe with Turkish
realities. So we began implementing a series of programs; however, there
was no way these could break pathological anti-Turkey prejudices.

It is true the Muslim diaspora in EU countries have failed to become
integrated with the peoples of their host countries and that they have
become more �radical� since the Sept. 11 terrorist incident, delivering
a blow to Turkey's chances for membership.

However, the EU countries, too, have played a role in that. Even in
those EU countries with a very small remaining Jewish Diaspora, a
revival of anti-Semitism has been witnessed since the 1970s. The rise of
racism against Muslims, the questioning of the awful nature of the
Holocaust and the desecration of Jewish cemeteries all came at the same
time. Less than 50 years after the Holocaust, Europe's problems with
members of other monotheistic religions have surfaced again.

Under the circumstances, efforts to integrate Muslims with peoples of
their host countries came to be directed at an impossible target --
assimilation. In the face of all kinds of debasement, discrimination and
even violence, Muslims have refused to abandon their own identity and
become assimilated. Although these Muslims were not well versed in
history, it was as if they felt what would happen to those who seek
integration at the cost of losing their identity.

Neither the objections made to Turkish membership in the EU nor the
Armenian genocide claims are isolated issues that happen outside that
climate in the EU. If the EU fails to make Turkey a member, the EU may
lose its chance to become a global strategic actor, a role that
d'Estaing considers to be the EU's way out of the present crisis.

Turkey is the only democratic and secular country seeking EU
membership, leaving such a country out only because it is a Muslim
country would create strategic problems in this climate of �crisis with
Islam.� However, the EU itself would not be solving these problems
anyway. Much more importantly, that would be the end of the civilization
project that envisages European integration by establishing a
multicultural supra-national liberal democracy to prevent a recurrence
of the tragic events of the past. In other words, rejection of the
Turkish bid for EU membership would indicate that Europe is regressing
to the pre-EU era.

It seemed pathetic that while facing such an existentialist identity
problem EU members delved into details of budgetary issues at the recent
EU summit as if they were discussing �the sex of the angels.�

Let us, by suspending the accession process, give the EU time to
reflect. But let us also explain the potential consequences of an EU
failure to overcome the affliction in EU identity that is causing the EU
to give Turkey the cold shoulder.


-----------
Copyright 2005, Turkish Daily News. This article is redistributed with
permission for personal use of Groong readers. No part of this article
may be reproduced, further distributed or archived without the prior
permission of the publisher. Contact Turkish Daily News Online at
http://www.TurkishDailyNews.com for details.
-----------

http://groong.usc.edu/news/msg116730.html

[Siamanto]

[Ironically, not long ago, Mr. Prodi had a "positive" opinion of TEMPORARILY SO CALLED Turkey. ]

Pan Armenian News

ROMANO PRODI: TURKEY'S ACCESSION TO EU SHOULD BE RECONSIDERED


22.06.2005 04:12

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Ex-President of the European Commission Romano Prodi
stated that the issue of Turkey's accession to the European Union should be
reconsidered. He said he is convinced that Turkey is incapable of honoring
the commitments to the EU in the near future. Turkish press assessed Mr.
Prodi's statement as `betrayal of conviction', Yerkir Online reported.

http://groong.usc.edu/news/msg116654.html

[Siamanto]

Pope Reveals Reservations for Turkey's EU Membership

22.06.2005 11:54

YEREVAN (YERKIR) - Pope Benedict XVI, the spiritual leader of the
Roman Catholic Church, showed a suspicious attitude towards Turkey's
European Union (EU) membership in the first book he has written since
becoming the new Pope in the Vatican.

Pope Benedict XVI indicates in his new book titled "The Example of
Benedict in the Crisis of Cultures" (L'Europa di Benedetto nella crisi
delle culture) that Turkey does not have Christian roots contrary to
European countries. According to the news published by Apcom, a
private Italian news agency, the Pope invites readers to think about
Turkey's EU bid.

The news reads that the pontiff referred to Saint Benedict whom the
Catholic Church perceives as the "protector of Europe" in his new book
and defined Turkey as a country that has no roots in Christianity and
is influenced by Islamic culture; in other words, Turkey has the
atmosphere of an Islamic culture in fact.

Determining in his book that Mustafa Kemal Ataturk as the founder of
the Turkish republic had tried to transform Turkey into a secular
state by adopting secularism formed in the Christian world, Pope
Benedict XVI advocated that the European identity might only be
determined by the context and norms of the same enlightened
culture. Any country fulfilling these criteria might be European.


Speaking to an Italian newspaper about his book, Benedict XVI also
said that the non-mentioning of the Christian roots in the EU
constitution was wrong.

http://groong.usc.edu/news/msg116749.html

[karakitap]

here is an excerpt from an abstract for a paper delivered by lucy der manuelian, a highly respected architectural historian at tufts university, at a conference devoted to armenian constantinople at ucla a few years ago:

"But what is startling is that the most splendid architectural monuments--those that define the power and might of the Ottoman Empire--were built by Armenian architects. These Armenians, appointed as imperial architects and Chief Court Architects by the Ottoman sultans built those considered the most famous monuments of the empire. They include mosques and mosque complexes such as the Suleymaniye, considered by many as the supreme architectural monument of the Ottoman period, the Sehzade Mehmed Mosque, Mihrimah Mosque, Rustem Pasha Mosque and Selimiye Mosque in Edirne, all built in the 16th century by the architect Sinan. He was appointed the chief imperial architect by Suleyman the Magnificent and his two immediate successors, Selim II (1566-1574) and Murad III (1574-1595). Although Sinan is usually identified by authors as "an Ottoman architect" or as "a Christian forced by the Ottomans to serve in the Janissary corps," or sometimes as a Greek or "probably a Greek," he can be identified as an Armenian through a document in the imperial archives and other evidence. He is considered the greatest architect in Ottoman history, and sometimes referred to as the greatest architect who ever lived because of the huge number of structures he designed and built."

you can read the rest at:

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/history/centers/armenian/source111.html

as for music i am aware of those musicians' names. i have some recordings of ottoman-era music performed by people like kudsi erguner, goksel baktagir, derya turkan, etc. they are playing compositions by tatyos efendi, kemani sebuh, etc. i was not aware of calgiciyan but coskun sabah was born to armenian parents.

as for my family, one part came from kayseri, one part yozgat, and the other gurun. this last part was a merchant family that owned land in samsun, trabzon, erzerum, and batum. other members of this family were born in trabzon. they must have been a wealthy family b/c my great-grandfather attended robert college in istanbul, even though he was born in manchester, england around 1875.

what about yours? interesting story about your aunt ziynet.

It is a very nice thing for us to observe that every nation in OE is trying to proove that Sinan belongs to them. But I never see this kind of interpretation: "a Christian forced by the Ottomans to serve in the Janissary corps" So you mean that Sinan was a secret Christian? Yes he may come from a Christian family and join Janissaries but since his childhood he spent all his life as a dedicated Muslim. It is easy to proove this. If you read Sinan's personal notebook you see it easily. These notes are never puıblished of read by others during his time. These are his personal notes.

Well, my grandfather was originally from Hinis/Erzurum. They were very rich and the owners of several villages in the area. When Russians invaded eastern anatolia at 1915 winter all our family fleed to west, escaped from Russians, they lost all their villages, goods, everything and escaped by foot. My grandfather lost his sister at this march but he reached Malatya. Some of the family members reached to Damascus and they lost the communication. I know that probably I have some relatives at Syria today, but I don't know who they are. My father is borned at Malatya.
My grandfather's brother found Aunt Ziynet as an orphan child (probably she was a survivor of massacres against Armenians) She grow with them and became a member of the family. When I was a child she was very old and I couldn't able to ask her story. I am sure that she had lot of horroble experiences to tell. Anyway, she died at 1984 or 85 I thing. She had children and grandchildren. Her grandchildren became very succesful people and we meet eachother almost everyweek.

[bell-the-cat]

sorry but this sounds a bit paranoid.

And what are you - to think you can cite a building you have never even seen? I have been to Divrigi many times, and viewed the mosque/hospital complex many times.

[bell-the-cat]

>
> The word Trabzon, Trapezounta or Trapezous as its older name was, is
> derived
> from the word Tetrapezous. According to an old myth Zeus punched with
> anger
> a table [tetrapezon=tetrapodon=a four legged table] and that's how it
got
> its name.

The table-shaped rock on which the citadel of Trabzon/Trebizond was built seems a more realistic explanation.

[CatWoman]

now i see why it is that so many armenian women bleach their hair blond - they are trying to convince themselves and others that they are white europeans.

And naturally brunette whites (and by white I mean Europeans not that we're not white) bleach their hair to convince themselves and others that they're white? But they already are! Has it ever occurred to you that maybe they like the color and it matches them more than brown hair does?

Sorry man, but that was the stupidest explanation for a hair color change.

Oh and you said your nationality is middle eastern... Armenia is not even in the middle east!!!!

[karakitap]

And naturally brunette whites (and by white I mean Europeans not that we're not white) bleach their hair to convince themselves and others that they're white? But they already are! Has it ever occurred to you that maybe they like the color and it matches them more than brown hair does?

Sorry man, but that was the stupidest explanation for a hair color change.

Oh and you said your nationality is middle eastern... Armenia is not even in the middle east!!!!

I agree. Armenians are European and they are white, too. They are like Italians or Spanish. And they are white, too. Armenians have no difference than white anglo-saxon protestant creamy people in US. Or they are like French, British,... OK, or they are like mediaterranean, hey Greeks for example. Please somebody explain to me that what is the difference between a Grrek and an Armenian? If they are considered as European, for sure Armenians are, too. Please don't compare Armenians with those Arabs, Turks, Persians, etc. Armenians belong to west. In a way. I maybe can not find a strong link now but don't make me angry. Armenians are white, even they are almost blondy. How can you prove that Armenians were not look like Europeans in the past? Maybe those Turks, etc. are deteriorated or genes?
We are white, because we are civilised, we are not like Turks, we are not at the same group with those middle-easterns, Armenians are WHİİİİİİTEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!

[bezjian]

And naturally brunette whites (and by white I mean Europeans not that we're not white) bleach their hair to convince themselves and others that they're white? But they already are! Has it ever occurred to you that maybe they like the color and it matches them more than brown hair does?

Sorry man, but that was the stupidest explanation for a hair color change.

Oh and you said your nationality is middle eastern... Armenia is not even in the middle east!!!!

armenia might be part of the council of europe and its soccer team might be part of uefa but that doesn't mean armenians are european. neither does being christian nor having an indo-european language mean armenians are european. read what i wrote here and tell me what you would like to dispute. the ancestral home of armenians is roughly coterminous with the armenian plateau, a region which comprises parts of anatolia and the southern caucasus. the caucasus is usually given as a border of europe, therefore armenians are on the other side of the border with europe. you can show me maps of europe that include armenia if you want, but i disagree with them. imagine for a minute that there had never been an armenian genocide. the vast majority of armenians would be living in van, erzerum, diyarbakir, mush, kharpert, urfa, adana, sivas, kayseri etc. (in addition to tiflis, yerevan, not to mention armenians of iran). these are all in anatolia, which is now turkey, and our positions as armenians is that turkey is not part of europe. so if this is the case, then why is armenia part of europe? armenians are european all of a sudden b/c they became victims of mass murder? were armenians european in 500 b.c.? europe was a land of primitive beasts back then, and no one in the ancient near-eastern world that armenians inhabited were even aware that it existed.

besides, i do not see european faces when i look at armenians. they look pretty middle eastern to me. as for the hair thing it's obvious that living in white peoples' countries and being subjected to their notions of beauty has given some armenians an inferiority complex about their looks. everyone knows how "caucasus people" are treated in russia (not the fault of armenians), so it's a little naieve to claim that hair dyeing is only about what matches your skin. there's a reason why dark skinned people have dark hair and light-skinned people have light hair.

[karakitap]

armenia might be part of the council of europe and its soccer team might be part of uefa but that doesn't mean armenians are european. neither does being christian nor having an indo-european language mean armenians are european. read what i wrote here and tell me what you would like to dispute. the ancestral home of armenians is roughly coterminous with the armenian plateau, a region which comprises parts of anatolia and the southern caucasus. the caucasus is usually given as a border of europe, therefore armenians are on the other side of the border with europe. you can show me maps of europe that include armenia if you want, but i disagree with them. imagine for a minute that there had never been an armenian genocide. the vast majority of armenians would be living in van, erzerum, diyarbakir, mush, kharpert, urfa, adana, sivas, kayseri etc. (in addition to tiflis, yerevan, not to mention armenians of iran). these are all in anatolia, which is now turkey, and our positions as armenians is that turkey is not part of europe. so if this is the case, then why is armenia part of europe? armenians are european all of a sudden b/c they became victims of mass murder? were armenians european in 500 b.c.? europe was a land of primitive beasts back then, and no one in the ancient near-eastern world that armenians inhabited were even aware that it existed.

besides, i do not see european faces when i look at armenians. they look pretty middle eastern to me. as for the hair thing it's obvious that living in white peoples' countries and being subjected to their notions of beauty has given some armenians an inferiority complex about their looks. everyone knows how "caucasus people" are treated in russia (not the fault of armenians), so it's a little naieve to claim that hair dyeing is only about what matches your skin. there's a reason why dark skinned people have dark hair and light-skinned people have light hair.

Armenians don't need to prove anything to Europeans or western people in general since they have a very regarded cultural background. More respectable than history of Swedish, Norvegian, Danish, Slovaks, Switzerland, etc. for my opinon. Armenia belongs to East and they have to be proud of it instead of watching hollywood films, adopting western racism and get into infreiority complexes.