Turkey and the EU

I think we need a topic like this. Here's my answer to Aristotle's arguments.

Yes 'European' is open to debate. But as long as you include Balkans in Europe and exclude religon from it, as the current definition seems to do, there is no way you can keep Turkey out. Of course, as we agree, this is just technical, since a country can be 'European' but not an EU member.

You are right in asserting that Turkish occupation of Cyprus is in violation of international law and is unjust. My stance is that it was acceptable for Turkey to intervene in 1973 (due to Greek errors and previous international agreements between Greece Turkey and UK), but after that Turkey should have re-instituted the Cypriot Republic, not conducted another operation, causing displacement of people and continuing the occupation. Although the Greeks also have some of the blame that no solution was found in the meanwhile, it is mainly Turkey's fault after the first operation.  

What I object to is the conspiracy theory that this was a Turkish-American plot to eliminate Makarios. This is ridiculous. Risking a war between two NATO members, placing an embargo on your first line of defence and getting your bases including your vital listening stations on the Soviet border shut in return, all in order to remove a clown in a small island, who may be friendly with the USSR? Does this make any sense to you? Besides there is another little detail that seem to escape your attention, Makarios was already gone when Turkey invaded and Cyprus was declared a part of Greece, which was solidly American-sphere. One can perfectly argue that America ignored that move because they supported the junta, it makes more sense than the other way around; Greece got no embargo for Enosis (excuse me, but it really sounds like Greek for 'anschluss'- Greece was not a democracy at the time anyway). Just like 'apartheid' and 'lebesraum' are perfect words to describe Israeli policies...   

What I call conspiracy theory is the notion that Turkey actually has any influence over the US State Department. Because it does not. Biggest proof being the fact that the PKK is operating out of Northern Iraq, which is under American control. Also you are greatly overestimating American support for Turkey (which is mostly words, not that they are offering money or anything), it cannot change the EU policy on the subject. Support for Turkey comes from those countries in the EU which want the EU to be a wide as possible cooperation area, where all nation states retain their individual sovereignity compared to the resistance from those states which want the EU to become a European superstate in the long run.

'I speak for the people not politicians', eh? Nice u-turn there. So at least I guess you concede that '%90 of the opposition' does not come from the left. Anyway, the issue is not resolved for the people yet. In many countries people are in favour. In those which aren't, when you ask the question as 'should Turkey join the EU if it fully complies with the Copenhagen criteria', more than half say yes. Expect more change in this in the coming years if Turkey continues with the reforms. 

Croatia has recently emerged from a ethnical war, and is currently ruled by mafia. It is harbouring war criminals. Has no historic experience of democracy. Light years ahead of Turkey? No way.

Greece was just 'a Balkan country in Western Europe' when it joined, still it is behind Western Europe. Actually when the EEC first invited Greece to join the trade, it simultaneously asked Turkey as well. Turkey declined the offer to protect indiginous industry. They were very comparable.

Portugal has democracy since the 70s. Turkey has a multi-party democracy since 1950s (with periods of military rule- like Greece). In most of this period Turkey was more democratic than Portugal or Spain (and at some point even richer).

Finally remember that you should compare today's Turkey not to the accession date of Portugal or Greece, but to the date the accession talks started, which lasted more than 10 years in Portugal's case. Otherwise you are committing the hypocrisy I wrote of above. So, yes, they were very comparable to Turkey of today.

I am not ignoring it, I am putting it in perspective. It is of course true that Turkey is not as democratic-liberal as Western Europe, but it is not true that Turkey is a 'covert fascist' state ruled by iron-fisted generals. As you correctly guess, I know the extent of Turkey's democracy better than you do, and my impression is (from talking to countless Greeks and reading some articles from their media) that Greek media underestimates power of civilian rule in Turkey. Military has a lot of influnce in Turkish politics, yes, but it is nowhere near control. Turkish state is the direct descendant of the Ottoman one, it has its traditions. Turkey is not a banana republic, or a middle eastern oil state otherwise it would never have returned to civilian rule after the coups it experienced in the past. Indeed the military knew that they could not keep the power so they willingly handed it over to the civilians in all cases.

If you had asked me about the shortcomings of Turkish democracy (or economy) I could have explained a lot to you. But when you write that Turkey is less democratic (or have a weaker economy) than Bulgaria or Romania when they started accession talks (when was it?), or indeed, even now, you are simply wrong. Even this limited pressure from the EU has improved things greatly in Turkey. I hope it will continue.

I agree about the situation with Cyprus as I wrote, it is absurd. About the issues with Greece, I think they should be resolved by international tribunes in a just way, this is also what Greece says AFAIK, so no problem there. But don't expect Turkey to accept the Greek position before this happens. So Greece'd better not be too easily provoked. I personally think that all these problems can be solved if Turkey joins the EU. If not, well, too bad for all of us.

If people will need instructions or permissions from the moderators to post this site will change into real crap. Beylerbeyi has right to express his opinions and there is nothing provocative in his posts.

I believe its Israel first, Egypt second, then Columbia and Turkey.

2 points:

1. American aid to Turkey is not directly supporting Turkey's bid to join the EU. At most it is indirect support. Their direct support consists of open support-diplomatic position. When I said they are not givin any money, I meant that they are not paying the EU to accept Turkey.

2. I am pretty sure that Turkey is not the 3rd largest recipient of American aid. AFAIK, military aid is phased out, (although the costs of Turkish NATO operations in Afghanistan are covered by the US). If Turkey had had accepted to let Americans use its soil to launch the Iraqi invasion, it would have received some billions, but it didn't happen. After that Turkey hadn't got much aid, for some reason? Bush is spending money on more crucial allies against the war in Iraq. And fighting revolution in Latin America as usual. Note that Turkey is a major debtor to the IMF, but it is credit, not aid.

I've googled this:

http://www.terrorismanswers.org/policy/foreignaid2.html