Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

No, Star of David. A pentagram has five points (penta = five in Greek)

Although there have been rumors that Ataturk’s mother was Jewish, popular belief is that he was a Muslim.
The rumor was created by the followers of sharia who are against Atatürk and his reforms. They resist new Turkey.
There is no proof that he was a Jewish and none of the six biographies of him that was written mentions that.
In fact as a boy, he rebelled against his mother’s desire to give him a traditional religious education, and at the age of 12, he was, on his demand, sent to military academy.
However, the annoying thing is, the debate and study of ideology named 'Kemalism,' is something Turks avoid and there’re limitations of the Turks’ right and access to their founder and his background.
There’re laws written by Turkey to protect Ataturk from any 'negative' criticism, without personal attacks. That contradicts the open-book policy of today's global societies where nothing is untouchable.

Turkey still has issues around Kurds and troops in Northern Cyprus..
I wonder which one of these will appear next..

muyesser wrote:Although there have been rumors that Ataturk’s mother was Jewish, popular belief is that he was a Muslim.
The rumor was created by the followers of sharia who are against Atatürk and his reforms. They resist new Turkey.
There is no proof that he was a Jewish and none of the six biographies of him that was written mentions that.
In fact as a boy, he rebelled against his mother’s desire to give him a traditional religious education, and at the age of 12, he was, on his demand, sent to military academy.
However, the annoying thing is, the debate and study of ideology named 'Kemalism,' is something Turks avoid and there’re limitations of the Turks’ right and access to their founder and his background.
There’re laws written by Turkey to protect Ataturk from any 'negative' criticism, without personal attacks. That contradicts the open-book policy of today's global societies where nothing is untouchable.

But it doesn't contradict the latest set of rules published in the UAE

Turkey will be very much an unwanted partner in the EU, if it weren't for its geographical importance I guess they might still be waiting for talks to even start. Their human rights record will be an embarassment but Europe would love to have more of a territorial buffer against the hardline Islamic countries. Are they just being 'strung along' for as long as the EU can, it's practically a totally Islamic country?

Speedhump wrote:Turkey will be very much an unwanted partner in the EU, if it weren't for its geographical importance I guess they might still be waiting for talks to even start. Their human rights record will be an embarassment but Europe would love to have more of a territorial buffer against the hardline Islamic countries.

Speedy, I totally agree with your thesis (emphasized) but your proofs are a little bit weird I must say.

You have already got a "territorial buffer" against "real" threat of Russian panzer battalions.
It's a belt of very small undeveloped totally controled states. At the other hand those countries are a source of a cheap labour.

In these terms there is no room for Turkey in the EU. Turkey can't offer anything more.

Your threat from "hardline Islamic" countries looks as a thumbsucker.

Red Chief wrote:

Speedhump wrote:Turkey will be very much an unwanted partner in the EU, if it weren't for its geographical importance I guess they might still be waiting for talks to even start. Their human rights record will be an embarassment but Europe would love to have more of a territorial buffer against the hardline Islamic countries.

Speedy, I totally agree with your thesis (emphasized) but your proofs are a little bit weird I must say.

You have already got a "territorial buffer" against "real" threat of Russian panzer battalions.
It's a belt of very small undeveloped totally controled states. At the other hand those countries are a source of a cheap labour.

In these terms there is no room for Turkey in the EU. Turkey can't offer anything more.

Your threat from "hardline Islamic" countries looks as a thumbsucker.

I don't see what you are getting at.

Turkey is the country which controls the Bosporus Canal, it's the country which controls output from the Kirkuk/Ceyhan oil pipeline (Iraq to Turkey), allowing Iraqi crude oil to reach the Mediterranean Sea without going via the Suez Canal (a strategically important point, and both are open to sabotage). Turkey is the country which more than any other has to comingle Islam with Christianity as it has a predominantly Islamic population but is greedy to have a Western outlook, money and lifestyle.

More than any other country Turkey is the one where the moderation of Islam must take place, so close to the EU's borders. It's quite clear that as Turkey borders Syria, Iraq AND Iran that it has a purpose to serve the EU as a buffer between East and West. The problem is how to incorporate it into the Union in its currently unacceptable form. Am I missing something or are you? Why are the EU even in discussions with Turkey to enter the EU if not for this reason, please explain.

Glorious panzer divisions of Russia? Please put your uniform back in the closet you won't be needing it any time soon and it still smells of mothballs.

I don't see where is the thumbsucking?

Wait, you seem to imagine I am talking about a military threat. Where did I say that? I am thinking of far more insidious 'invasions', cultural and religious. Trust you to get the war-like idea in your head

Bullshit. Turkey (12 million of its cirizens) is the biggest thread for German's identity now

If you opened the borders all 80 millions would be there.
EU can't digest Eastern Block to think about joining another ragamuffins at one hand.

At the other hand the steam engines of EU Germany/France are afraid for so big nation which will be not easy to control.

All Turkish territorial benefits (which exist) can't cover possible aftereffects.

Of course EU want to keep its influence (w/o giving anything back. It was common practice). At the other hand Turkey was a member of NATO before states of Eastern Block. So a lot of promices have been given.

In brief discussions are not a membership. They could go on forever.

double post

All you are doing is agreeing with me.

I said: Are they just being 'strung along' for as long as the EU can, it's practically a totally Islamic country?

And you admit that territorial advantage exists in having Turkey in the EU, but that in its current state Turkey's membership of EU can't be accepted.

You are trying to argue with me without arguing with me.

Also the immigration problem is across Europe (not just Germany).

Muslim demographics (slightly overdone on the facts, but the problem is real):

In my first post I wrote that I agreed with your thesis. I didn't agree with "a territorial buffer against the hardline Islamic countries".

Don't be defensive. Why can't we discuss some matter without quarrel? Anyway I've never attacked you without reason.

P.S. About territorial advantages I wrote that they exist but not sufficient enough to have Wild Turks in EU.

We are not quarreling even though you called my views bullshit

My point was that EU would like the territory but Turkey's human rights record will stop it from happening any time soon. You also pointed out that free movement of population will cause even more trouble. Also I didn't mention it before, but Turkey would be a huge drain on EU funds, like those ex-soviet buffer states you mentioned.

So I said are the EU just 'stringing Turkey along' for as long as they can (maybe even indefinitely?). Stringing along means talking but giving nothing.

So I fail to see where you disagree with me?

I would like to think that Turkey is not a ‘totally Islamic’ country but rather ‘not totally secular’ one; it’s a tricky balance trying to figure out how a non-Arab Muslim country should be like..?

If you look at secular elites in Turkey, their notion of secularism is not the separation of mosque and state. They basically have a very negative attitude towards religion itself.

Given that 99 percent of the population is Muslim, Turkey’s secularism and parliamentary democracy is perceived by the West as an example to the rest of the Muslim world. This is hypocritical because the image of that democratic country hides a lot of tension in itself.

Partly in Europe, partly in Asia, Turkey has long been a bridge between East and West, but it doesn’t fit neatly in either.
When we look from the Western side, the country is very Eastern, and when look from the Eastern side, Turkey is very Western country.

Turkey with its current economic instability, will find it rather difficult to meet the EU monetary union convergent criterias –single currency, government deficit, price stability- to become a member, not to forget the bad human right records.

Speedhump wrote:My point was that EU would like the territory but Turkey's human rights record will stop it from happening any time soon.

Come on, Speedy, It's not an issue at all. Bulgaria had and has very bad records for involvement criminals in goverment and business.

Sufficient part (more than 30%) of Latvian and Estonian have passports of "non-citizens", unique phenomenon in the WORLD !!! EU closed its eyes for such violations of "human rights".

Where your human rights defenders were intime of bombing defenceless Serbiam cities in 1999? Probably the right to live is not so fundamental...

So "human rights" is a lame but very convenient excuse. Here we have some agreement I think.

As I said before It looks like countries from Eastern Block were needed EU as a "territorial buffer", but Turkey doesn't have such value. It's a point of our disagreement.

As I said we are not disagreeing, I didn't comment on the inclusion of ex-soviet countries in the EU, you have a point that they were accepted despite their faults for reasons nothing to do with 'economic union'.

But I don't believe Bulgaria has as bad a record as Turkey in any way, and that's not even discussing historical Armenian problems still hurting Turkey, and their current mistreatment of a whole ethnic people in their southeast.

Turkey's record on torture, political oppression, religious intolerance, ethnic rights, etc, have been very much a problem, you are the only voice I have heard disagree. There is internal pressure on the government to become more Islamist. A lot of the problems stem from the fact that despite a pro-western government the thinking there is still quite underlyingly Islamic, it's a historical thing and not easy to get rid of.

But I did ask you, can you tell me why the EU feels the need to even engage in discussion with Turkey about EU membership if they have no need of them at all, and why are they still part of NATO?

Edit: spelling

muyesser wrote:I would like to think that Turkey is not a ‘totally Islamic’ country but rather ‘not totally secular’ one; it’s a tricky balance trying to figure out how a non-Arab Muslim country should be like..?

It's not totally Islamic and it wants to be secular (or the majority of the elite seem to understand that is their way forward), however there are pressures inside Turkey for religion to interfere more in state matters.

If you look at secular elites in Turkey, their notion of secularism is not the separation of mosque and state. They basically have a very negative attitude towards religion itself.

Given that 99 percent of the population is Muslim, Turkey’s secularism and parliamentary democracy is perceived by the West as an example to the rest of the Muslim world. This is hypocritical because the image of that democratic country hides a lot of tension in itself.

This is a point, most of the country is Muslim, we are not just talking about Istanbul and Ankara here. It is important for the EU to be able to hold them in the air and wave them, as an 'Islamic secular buffer'.

Partly in Europe, partly in Asia, Turkey has long been a bridge between East and West, but it doesn’t fit neatly in either.
When we look from the Western side, the country is very Eastern, and when look from the Eastern side, Turkey is very Western country.

Turkey with its current economic instability, will find it rather difficult to meet the EU monetary union convergent criterias –single currency, government deficit, price stability- to become a member, not to forget the bad human right records.

I agree, Red Chief thinks that the human rights issue is just smokescreen, I believe it is certainly a convenient thing for the EU to use to stave off the eventual crunch of join or not join, but it also is a real matter.

NATO is totally another issue. It was and is a military instrument for infuence of US in the World, mostly against Russia. In this case Turkey has some value.

Why do you connent it with EU states who initialy were an economical union of defeated states in WW2 (Germany, France and Italy) to survive in the World's competition?

P.S. I've never told that human rights is not an issue. I wrote only that EU used and uses it presumably when it's convinient for them, the double standard policy.

Red Chief wrote:NATO is totally another issue. It was and is a military instrument for infuence of US in the World, mostly against Russia. In this case Turkey has some value.

It was you that mentioned NATO. I presumed you meant that the EU had some moral debt to Turkey because of its longstanding membership. Turkey's continued membership of NATO is of benefit to both the EU and the US. It's not so beneficial to Turkey though IMO, unless they can get the full EU package, otherwise they are cutting off other potential economic and military allies.

Why do you connent it with EU states who initialy were an economical union of defeated states in WW2 (Germany, France and Italy) to survive in the World's competition?

I don't connect it. Turkey itself wants to be connected. Simple.

P.S. I've never told that human rights is not an issue. I wrote only that EU used and uses it presumably when it's convinient for them, the double standard policy.

Yes we agree on its convenience to the EU. Howewer the EU certainly does consider human rights as a relevant issue, as former Yugoslav states are still not even candidates for membership.

Red Chief, you didn't tell me why the EU is even interested in discussing EU membership with Turkey, what are the reasons in your own opinion?

Hungarian Sarcozy has told directly that EU should cancel this discussion. I think his partner Ms. Merckel from DDR shares his position.

There were a lot of promises had been given before sudden collapse of Eastern Block. Nobody waited for it.

Actually EU don't want even the empty discussions.

P.S. Your knowledge in Continental history is depressed me. Slovenia, the former Yugoslavian state, was in the first portion of EU members from Eastern block.

Red Chief wrote:Hungarian Sarcozy has told directly that EU should cancel this discussion. I think his partner Ms. Merckel from DDR shares his position.

There were a lot of promises had been given before sudden collapse of Eastern Block. Nobody waited for it.

Actually EU don't want even the empty discussions.

P.S. Your knowledge in Continental history is depressed me. Slovenia, the former Yugoslavian state, was in the first portion of EU members from Eastern block.

EU would be stupid to let Turkey walk away free and get into bed with Russia for example.

You are the depressing one. How many other ex-Yugoslav states are NOT EVEN up for membership, please enlighten me. Stop with the sarcasm it makes you sound childish. Are you descending to insults again?

Speedhump wrote:EU would be stupid to let Turkey walk away free and get into bed with Russia for example.

I don't think that it's an issue - it's difficult to forget bad history. You are right that Turkey needs to find its place in the World.

Russia is also in very chalenging situation now, Ukrain is nearly collapsed in its Western orientation.

I heard that the people of many ex-soviet states wished the return of USSR. Mostly the poorer, country people I imagine. Is this true of Ukraine peasant people, or even in Kiev itself?

Seems that you are correct, with the dragging on of Turkey's application for a lot of years, EU membership now is no way automatic for NATO members!

There was a vigorous campaign in 02 launched by Bush and his administration aimed to pressure the EU to put Turkish membership onto the fast track.

The US initiative was based on strategic considerations. As the key member of NATO her strategic position has become, since 11 September, quite vital. Therefore, Turkish airbases and other military support will be essential in any US attack on Iraq.

In particular, Bush demanded that the EU relax the so called Copenhagen membership criteria, which are supposed to make tough demands on would - be entrants' treatment of human rights, press freedom, and the rights of ethnic minorities.

50% of Ukrainian are ethnically Russians. Russian is the first language for 90% of inhabitance and understandable by 100%. Ukrainain, that used to be a language of peasans is not understandable by more than 50% of inhabitance. Big cities/plants/mines are connected to Russia technologically.

It's a big tragedy for people when new states appear according to administrative borders. We lived together with Eastern Ukraine for 350 yesrs. Crimea was Russian before bloody Ukrainian Khruschev. Sevastopol is a city of Russian glory where each santimeter were poured by Russian blood in Crimian war and WW2.

That's why there were a lot of wars in Yugoslavia.

Double post

In his book ‘Breaking of Nations’ Robert Cooper, -formerly a special adviser to T.Blair- argues that EU represents the most advanced case of a "postmodern" global order with no national boundaries, conflicts are settled, not by war, but through negotiations and even court cases.

The question here is, would Turkey be a fit candidate with its unresolved Armenian and Kurdish conflict that a potential threat to its ‘national borders’…

Fab thread guys, very informative. I'm lapping it up!

For interest:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121997087258381935.html
AUGUST 29, 2008

Will Turkey Abandon NATO?
By ZEYNO BARAN

Will Turkey side with the United States, its NATO ally, and let more U.S. military ships into the Black Sea to assist Georgia? Or will it choose Russia?

A Turkish refusal would seriously impair American efforts to support the beleaguered Caucasus republic. Ever since Turkey joined NATO in 1952, it has hoped to never have to make a choice between the alliance and its Russian neighbor to the North. Yet that is precisely the decision before Ankara. If Turkey does not allow the ships through, it will essentially be taking Russia's side.

Whether in government or in the military, Turkish officials have for several years been expressing concern about U.S. intentions to "enter" the Black Sea. Even at the height of the Cold War, the Black Sea remained peaceful due to the fact that Turkey and Russia had clearly defined spheres of influence. But littoral countries Romania and Bulgaria have since joined NATO, and Ukraine and Georgia have drawn closer to the Euro-Atlantic alliance. Ankara has expressed nervousness about a potential Russian reaction.

The Turkish mantra goes something like this: "the U.S. wants to expand NATO into the Black Sea -- and as in Iraq, this will create a mess in our neighborhood, leaving us to deal with the consequences once America eventually pulls out. After all, if Russia is agitated, it won't be the Americans that will have to deal with them."

Nonetheless, Ankara sided with fellow NATO members in telling Georgia and Ukraine that they would be invited to join the alliance -- albeit without any time frame. But now that Russia has waged war in part over this decision, the Turks will have to pick sides. Deputy chief of the Russian general staff Anatoly Nogoivtsyn already warned Turkey that Russia will hold Turkey responsible if the U.S. ships do not leave the Black Sea. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov will travel to Ankara on Monday to make clear that Russia means it.

Russia is Turkey's largest trading partner, mostly because of Turkey's dependence on Russian gas. More important, the two countries share what some call the post-imperial stress syndrome: that is, an inability to see former provinces as fellow independent states, and ultimately a wish to recreate old agreements on spheres of influence. When Mr. Putin gave a speech in Munich last year challenging the U.S.-led world order, Turks cheered. The Turkish military even posted it on its Web site. President Abdullah Gül recently suggested that "a new world order should emerge."

Turkey joined Russia at the height of its war on Georgia in suggesting a five-party "Caucasus Stability and Cooperation Platform." In other words, they want to keep the U.S. and the EU at arm's length. Both Russia and Turkey consider Georgia's American-educated president, Mikheil Saakashvili, to be crazy enough to unleash the next world war. In that view Turkey is not so far from the positions of France or Germany -- but even these two countries did not suggest that the Georgians sign up to a new regional arrangement co-chaired by Russia while the Kremlin's air force was bombing Georgian cities.

Two other neighbors -- Azerbaijan and Armenia -- are watching the Turkish-Russian partnership with concern. Azeris remember how the Turks -- their ethnic and religious brethren -- left them to be annexed by the Soviets in the 1920s. Armenians already fear their giant neighbor, who they consider to have committed genocide against them. Neither wants to have to rely on Iran (once again) as a counterbalance to Russia. Oh, and of course, Iran had its own sphere-of-influence arrangements with the Soviets as well.

Though Turkey and Iran are historic competitors, Turkey has broken with NATO countries recently by hosting President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad on a working visit. As the rest of NATO was preoccupied with the Russian aggression in Georgia, Turkey legitimized the Iranian leader amidst chants in Istanbul of "death to Israel, death to America."

A few days later, Turkey played host to Sudan's Omar al-Bashir, who is accused of genocide by the rest of NATO -- but not by Russia or Iran, or by the Muslim-majority countries who usually claim to care so much about Muslim lives.

Where is Turkey headed? Turkish officials say they are using their trust-based relations with various sides to act as a mediator between various parties in the region: the U.S. and Iran; Israel and Syria; Pakistan and Afghanistan, etc. It may be so. But as more American ships steam toward the Black Sea, a time for choosing has arrived.

Ms. Baran is senior fellow and director of the Center For Eurasian Policy at the Hudson Institute.

muyesser wrote:In his book ‘Breaking of Nations’ Robert Cooper, -formerly a special adviser to T.Blair- argues that EU represents the most advanced case of a "postmodern" global order with no national boundaries, conflicts are settled, not by war, but through negotiations and even court cases.

The question here is, would Turkey be a fit candidate with its unresolved Armenian and Kurdish conflict that a potential threat to its ‘national borders’…

The point is that Turkey should never be able to join the EU unless these issues are resolved. As RC says, for the EU it's a convenient escape hatch from the sunken submarine. I suggested the EU are 'stringing Turkey along' for as long as they are able, why?. You suggested the reason for this is that the EU want to appease the USA's militarily-based demands, I suggested that a secular Muslim country inside the EU would be an advantage, but not necessarily enough of an advantage to take on the burden of Turkey 'as it stands'.

I doubt if the above much-detailed analysis applies to Obama erra.

After all, US and Russia are no longer at odds on some issues.

Turkey seems to worry me with its inclination towards the Hamas and Iran, maybe due to their popular support , rather than to Turkey's
real interest.