http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSL645551620090506
QuoteIceland govt to introduce bill on EU talks -PM
REYKJAVIK, May 6 (Reuters) - Iceland's prime minister said on Wednesday the government would introduce a bill in parliament on authorising it to begin talks on joining the European Union.
"There will be a government resolution tabled (on EU talks)," Prime Minister Johanna Sigurdardottir said on state television. She did not give a timeframe for when the bill would be put forward.
Sigurdardottir's Social Democrats have been in favour of EU talks but their coalition partners, the Left-Greens, have been much more cautious about joining the bloc. Support for joining the EU and ultimately adopting the euro has risen sharply since Iceland's economic meltdown last October.
While I am no supporter of the lefties I am a staunch pro-european. Maybe this will force Norway in as well.
I for one welcome our new European Overlords.
In varietate concordia, baby (it means 'United in diversity'; Latin rules)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Feuropa.eu%2Fabc%2Fsymbols%2Femblem%2Fimages%2Feu-flag.gif&hash=239d110cde35460a222bd0a19c84f4afbf3fd178)
Quote from: Alatriste on May 07, 2009, 02:38:30 AM
In varietate concordia, baby (it means 'United in diversity'; Latin rules)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Feuropa.eu%2Fabc%2Fsymbols%2Femblem%2Fimages%2Feu-flag.gif&hash=239d110cde35460a222bd0a19c84f4afbf3fd178)
What's wrong with e pluribus unum?
Quote from: Alatriste on May 07, 2009, 02:38:30 AM
In varietate concordia, baby (it means 'United in diversity'; Latin rules)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Feuropa.eu%2Fabc%2Fsymbols%2Femblem%2Fimages%2Feu-flag.gif&hash=239d110cde35460a222bd0a19c84f4afbf3fd178)
Don't worry, we'll play the European game well. We are nothing like the "nice" scandinavians. We'll be as arrogant as the french, as big horese traders as the spanish and as unwilling to follow regulations as the greeks.
Quote from: citizen k on May 07, 2009, 02:46:07 AM
Quote from: Alatriste on May 07, 2009, 02:38:30 AM
In varietate concordia, baby (it means 'United in diversity'; Latin rules)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Feuropa.eu%2Fabc%2Fsymbols%2Femblem%2Fimages%2Feu-flag.gif&hash=239d110cde35460a222bd0a19c84f4afbf3fd178)
What's wrong with e pluribus unum?
Well, 'In Varietate Concordia' is Europe's official motto, 'E Pluribus Unum' is one amongst several United States mottos.
Iceland can't do any worse. I'm hoping everything that goes on might swing Sweden towards the Euro as well.
Quote from: Delirium on May 07, 2009, 03:20:46 AM
Iceland can't do any worse. I'm hoping everything that goes on might swing Sweden towards the Euro as well.
We want the Euro, yes, but first we need to join the EU :contract:
Do we want to take in more paupers? I don't want Bjork doing my plumbing :mad:
Obviously. I was talking about Sweden, Iceland is just a very small island.
Quote from: Delirium on May 07, 2009, 04:26:09 AM
Obviously. I was talking about Sweden, Iceland is just a very small island.
Iceland is the worlds 18th largest island and the 2nd largest island in Europe, more than 30 times larger than Gotland (sweden's largest).
Quote from: Brazen on May 07, 2009, 04:26:02 AM
Do we want to take in more paupers? I don't want Bjork doing my plumbing :mad:
It'll take a few years for Iceland to join the EU and in the meantime, hopefully, we'll have adopted the Lisbon Treaty. If we have, then Mazel Tov and welcome! If not, :( <_<
Kevin
Gotta love the EU...
"Saddled with a debt-driven economy? We'll take you if you're white. Swarthy middle-eastern NATO members need not apply."
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 07, 2009, 05:23:21 AM
Gotta love the EU...
"Saddled with a debt-driven economy? We'll take you if you're white. Swarthy middle-eastern NATO members need not apply."
If that were only so.
But if you were right, the greeks, spaniards, italians and irish would've never been invited.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 07, 2009, 05:23:21 AM
Gotta love the EU...
"Saddled with a debt-driven economy? We'll take you if you're white. Swarthy middle-eastern NATO members need not apply."
If Iceland joined, it would be the smallest country in the Union (400,000 inhabitants). The country has a well-developped economy and infrastructures, doesn't have any human rights problems and their debts represent peanuts for the EU.
While I support the adhesion of Turkey if they can improve their HR record a bit, there are a number of issues raised by its candidacy:
- Turkey would have the second largest population in the EU (82M for Germany, 71.5M for Turkey), with Turkey overtaking Germany by 2030. And of course the number of votes a country holds is linked to its population.
- A relatively poor country with a GDP per capita of $11,000 (EU average $29K) and infrastructures we need to improve. We're still economically integrating Eastern Europe and need to sort out a number of policies (redirecting CAP money for instance)
- Giving the EU a big land border with a lot of ME countries...
Kevin
Weird, Ireland is taking a out and Iceland wanting in because they're both in a similar mess.
QuoteGotta love the EU...
"Saddled with a debt-driven economy? We'll take you if you're white. Swarthy middle-eastern NATO members need not apply."
Because thats totally why Turkey hasn't joined.
Some lesser members like Austria grumble on about that sort of thing but those in who actually run the EU don't want Turkey for other reasons. Romania and Bulgaria were really, really stretching it. Eastern Turkey though....
IMO the way for Turkey to get in the EU is Kurdish independance. That part of their country is a shit hole that drags the rest of it down. War or no.
And of course they seem to hate the Kurds. The Kurds are the one issue that seems to turn them from nice, 20th century, muslim Greeks into typical lesser people replete with nationalism.
Its never going to happen though. So Turkey will have a long wait ahead of them. Hope they don't get bored.
:lol: Spin your European xenophobia any way you like if it makes you sleep at night.
But, since EVE Online's ISK is the only credible influx of currency in that fucked-up sequestered gene pool of a volcanic island, does that mean game subscribers would be able to trade it in for the Euro?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 07, 2009, 05:48:21 AM
:lol: Spin your European xenophobia any way you like if it makes you sleep at night
I think the USA should integrate Mexico and all the little countries all the way down to Panama.
No?
Xenophobe <_<
Now stop trolling
Kevin
Quote from: Eochaid on May 07, 2009, 05:54:36 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 07, 2009, 05:48:21 AM
:lol: Spin your European xenophobia any way you like if it makes you sleep at night
I think the USA should integrate Mexico and all the little countries all the way down to Panama.
No?
Xenophobe <_<
Now stop trolling
Kevin
We already have. The only difference between Los Angeles and Mexico City is that Los Angeles has more Mexicans.
God Bless America.
Go check your toaster, I think one of your Jew-Tarts just popped.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 07, 2009, 06:15:09 AMGo check your toaster, I think one of your Jew-Tarts just popped.
You're so bitter and twisted it is kind of cute
*humps CdM's leg* Kevin
Ireland hasn't been good to you, Echo.
Quote from: Eochaid on May 07, 2009, 04:39:58 AM
hopefully, we'll have adopted the Lisbon Treaty.
It passed the Czech senate yesterday. So that only leaves Vaclav Klaus, the Irish population and eight German judges in its way...
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 07, 2009, 06:25:58 AM
Ireland hasn't been good to you, Echo.
No, it hasn't.
I also suspect that Languish is partly responsible for twisting me into something annoying and gooey.
Kevin
Quote from: Tyr on May 07, 2009, 05:47:58 AM
Weird, Ireland is taking a out and Iceland wanting in because they're both in a similar mess.
QuoteGotta love the EU...
"Saddled with a debt-driven economy? We'll take you if you're white. Swarthy middle-eastern NATO members need not apply."
Because thats totally why Turkey hasn't joined.
Some lesser members like Austria grumble on about that sort of thing but those in who actually run the EU don't want Turkey for other reasons. Romania and Bulgaria were really, really stretching it. Eastern Turkey though....
IMO the way for Turkey to get in the EU is Kurdish independance. That part of their country is a shit hole that drags the rest of it down. War or no.
And of course they seem to hate the Kurds. The Kurds are the one issue that seems to turn them from nice, 20th century, muslim Greeks into typical lesser people replete with nationalism.
Its never going to happen though. So Turkey will have a long wait ahead of them. Hope they don't get bored.
if you like the turks somuch, you make the 51st state of the Union.
but the recent escapades with the elections there, as well as the rasmussen thing have shown is that Turkey isn't ready yet to join the civilised world. And it might never be.
Quote from: Slargos on May 07, 2009, 05:31:42 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 07, 2009, 05:23:21 AM
Gotta love the EU...
"Saddled with a debt-driven economy? We'll take you if you're white. Swarthy middle-eastern NATO members need not apply."
If that were only so.
But if you were right, the greeks, spaniards, italians and irish would've never been invited.
Spain is a swarthy south-western NATO member!
Besides, Turks and Spaniards (notice the capital 'T' and 'S' you Nazi) are pretty much teh same color. The idea Turks are dark skinned Arabs is a figment of the good Count's imagination (or a trap set to show we care about colors... a curious trap, since he's the one minding them but whatever)
Oh, there is that little question about numbers: Iceland, with its 300,000 inhabitants is just an small snack. Turkey with its fast growing 75,000,000 inhabitants, is almost too much to bite (and has borders with Syria, Iraq... )
Oh, and Iceland has rich fisheries too :pirate
Quote from: Eochaid on May 07, 2009, 04:39:58 AM
Quote from: Brazen on May 07, 2009, 04:26:02 AM
Do we want to take in more paupers? I don't want Bjork doing my plumbing :mad:
It'll take a few years for Iceland to join the EU and in the meantime, hopefully, we'll have adopted the Lisbon Treaty. If we have, then Mazel Tov and welcome! If not, :( <_<
Kevin
Few years? WTF? We are already in the EEA and are in better compliance with EU regulations that most of the EU. Iceland will (eventually) be a net contributor. You are desperate to get Iceland (and Norway) in.
Quote from: Eochaid on May 07, 2009, 05:39:07 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 07, 2009, 05:23:21 AM
Gotta love the EU...
"Saddled with a debt-driven economy? We'll take you if you're white. Swarthy middle-eastern NATO members need not apply."
If Iceland joined, it would be the smallest country in the Union (400,000 inhabitants). The country has a well-developped economy and infrastructures, doesn't have any human rights problems and their debts represent peanuts for the EU.
While I support the adhesion of Turkey if they can improve their HR record a bit, there are a number of issues raised by its candidacy:
- Turkey would have the second largest population in the EU (82M for Germany, 71.5M for Turkey), with Turkey overtaking Germany by 2030. And of course the number of votes a country holds is linked to its population.
- A relatively poor country with a GDP per capita of $11,000 (EU average $29K) and infrastructures we need to improve. We're still economically integrating Eastern Europe and need to sort out a number of policies (redirecting CAP money for instance)
- Giving the EU a big land border with a lot of ME countries...
Kevin
300,000, not 400,000, less than Luxembourg. Plus Iceland is willing to bargain it's vote on all EU bodies for fishing rights.
Quote from: Viking on May 07, 2009, 08:30:14 AMFew years? WTF? We are already in the EEA and are in better compliance with EU regulations that most of the EU. Iceland will (eventually) be a net contributor. You are desperate to get Iceland (and Norway) in.
I doubt it would take less than two years between the moment negociations open and Iceland joins. Especially since a lot of countries will refuse to let anyone in until we've ratified the Lisbon Treaty. :)
Kevin
PS: my bad on population :blush:
Quote from: Eochaid on May 07, 2009, 08:37:51 AM
Quote from: Viking on May 07, 2009, 08:30:14 AMFew years? WTF? We are already in the EEA and are in better compliance with EU regulations that most of the EU. Iceland will (eventually) be a net contributor. You are desperate to get Iceland (and Norway) in.
I doubt it would take less than two years between the moment negociations open and Iceland joins. Especially since a lot of countries will refuse to let anyone in until we've ratified the Lisbon Treaty. :)
Kevin
PS: my bad on population :blush:
Meh, thats just an excuse to avoid letting albania et.al. in before their political power can be neutered.
Quote from: Eochaid on May 07, 2009, 05:54:36 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 07, 2009, 05:48:21 AM
:lol: Spin your European xenophobia any way you like if it makes you sleep at night
I think the USA should integrate Mexico and all the little countries all the way down to Panama.
No?
Xenophobe <_<
Now stop trolling
Kevin
If the US was pushing a North American Union, then promptly said "Oh, we really just meant Canada!" then you would have a point. It would be a shitty, Martyesque stupid analogy point, but at least you would have *something*.
Work on it.
Quote from: Eochaid on May 07, 2009, 06:30:25 AM
I also suspect that Languish is partly responsible for twisting me into something annoying and gooey.
At least we have done some good in this world then.
If we were doing a North American Union we should include France since they own those little islands in Canada.
Quote from: Alatriste on May 07, 2009, 07:57:49 AM
Quote from: Slargos on May 07, 2009, 05:31:42 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 07, 2009, 05:23:21 AM
Gotta love the EU...
"Saddled with a debt-driven economy? We'll take you if you're white. Swarthy middle-eastern NATO members need not apply."
If that were only so.
But if you were right, the greeks, spaniards, italians and irish would've never been invited.
Spain is a swarthy south-western NATO member!
Besides, Turks and Spaniards (notice the capital 'T' and 'S' you Nazi) are pretty much teh same color. The idea Turks are dark skinned Arabs is a figment of the good Count's imagination (or a trap set to show we care about colors... a curious trap, since he's the one minding them but whatever)
Oh, there is that little question about numbers: Iceland, with its 300,000 inhabitants is just an small snack. Turkey with its fast growing 75,000,000 inhabitants, is almost too much to bite (and has borders with Syria, Iraq... )
Oh, and Iceland has rich fisheries too :pirate
:jaron:
Your spanish inanities will not be tolerated for much longer, dunecoon.
Quote from: Berkut on May 07, 2009, 10:01:28 AM
If the US was pushing a North American Union, then promptly said "Oh, we really just meant Canada!" then you would have a point. It would be a shitty, Martyesque stupid analogy point, but at least you would have *something*.
In addition, Mexico would have to be begging to join.
Personally, I am in favor of incorporating any nation that votes to become part of the US as one or more new states. The last new states were added in the 1950s; it's time for more.
Quote from: Berkut on May 07, 2009, 10:01:28 AMIf the US was pushing a North American Union, then promptly said "Oh, we really just meant Canada!" then you would have a point. It would be a shitty, Martyesque stupid analogy point, but at least you would have *something*.
Work on it.
I think you missed the sarcasm. If the US were ever to do something of the kind, it would obviously be easier to integrate Canada than Mexico.
My point is that although some (a lot) of people in Europe reject Turket out of fear (not necessary xenophobia, even if many of them are racist and xenophobic), Turkey's adhesion would raise some real issues.
I'm pro-Turkey, but I still think some kinks would have to be worked out.
Kevin
Quote from: ulmont on May 07, 2009, 10:07:16 AM
In addition, Mexico would have to be begging to join.
Personally, I am in favor of incorporating any nation that votes to become part of the US as one or more new states. The last new states were added in the 1950s; it's time for more.
Puerto Rico will be the 51st State sometime soon.
Quote from: Valmy on May 07, 2009, 10:09:29 AM
Puerto Rico will be the 51st State sometime soon.
The sooner the better.
Quote from: Valmy on May 07, 2009, 10:09:29 AM
Quote from: ulmont on May 07, 2009, 10:07:16 AM
In addition, Mexico would have to be begging to join.
Personally, I am in favor of incorporating any nation that votes to become part of the US as one or more new states. The last new states were added in the 1950s; it's time for more.
Puerto Rico will be the 51st State sometime soon.
I don't know, Latinos are pretty lazy.
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 07, 2009, 10:27:31 AM
I don't know, Latinos are pretty lazy.
Which is why they belong as part of modern America.
Quote from: Valmy on May 07, 2009, 10:09:29 AM
Puerto Rico will be the 51st State sometime soon.
:mad:
NO MORE TIMMAYS.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 07, 2009, 10:32:50 AM
:mad:
NO MORE TIMMAYS.
Soon there will be two Tim's in the Senate reading out newsarticles and going :w00t: and then sitting down.
Quote from: Valmy on May 07, 2009, 10:09:29 AM
Quote from: ulmont on May 07, 2009, 10:07:16 AM
In addition, Mexico would have to be begging to join.
Personally, I am in favor of incorporating any nation that votes to become part of the US as one or more new states. The last new states were added in the 1950s; it's time for more.
Puerto Rico will be the 51st State sometime soon.
They should discuss with Great Britain (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqOWBLugj9E) first if they can be number 51. ;)
Quote from: Valmy on May 07, 2009, 10:34:24 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 07, 2009, 10:32:50 AM
:mad:
NO MORE TIMMAYS.
Soon there will be two Tim's in the Senate reading out newsarticles and going :w00t: and then sitting down.
I feel sick. :(
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on May 07, 2009, 07:40:29 AM
if you like the turks somuch, you make the 51st state of the Union.
but the recent escapades with the elections there, as well as the rasmussen thing have shown is that Turkey isn't ready yet to join the civilised world. And it might never be.
Well at least you are pretending that you have an objective stance.
Well I can certainly see why they would be hesitant to simply bring in a country with a huge population and the largest birth rate outside of French Guiana. A country like that could be a dominant force in the Union and would dramatically weaken the influence of the other members, the larger ones particularly. Then you also factor in things like the Kurds and Cyprus and other headaches.
Iceland is a tiny nobody so is therefore pretty safe.
It kind of depends on what the point of the Union is.
Is it to keep the already wealthy Western nations wealthy in competition with the US/China? If so, yeah, don't dilute yourselves with those poor brown people.
Or is it something more?
Quote from: Berkut on May 07, 2009, 11:48:30 AM
Is it to keep the already wealthy Western nations wealthy in competition with the US/China? If so, yeah, don't dilute yourselves with those poor brown people.
That is sort of what I look at it as. It is a club of the shrinking (except for France and a few others) and declining Euro countries coming together as an attempt to stay important in the modern world.
Quote from: Valmy on May 07, 2009, 10:02:47 AM
If we were doing a North American Union we should include France since they own those little islands in Canada.
They should be annexed to Canada immediately for the greater glory of the North American Union.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 07, 2009, 11:53:26 AM
Quote from: Valmy on May 07, 2009, 10:02:47 AM
If we were doing a North American Union we should include France since they own those little islands in Canada.
They should be annexed to Canada immediately for the greater glory of the North American Union.
You mean the North American North Union, right?
Quote from: Berkut on May 07, 2009, 11:48:30 AM
It kind of depends on what the point of the Union is.
Is it to keep the already wealthy Western nations wealthy in competition with the US/China? If so, yeah, don't dilute yourselves with those poor brown people.
Or is it something more?
There is more to the EU than that.
BUT we have to try and do it right, which poses a number of problems:
- What are reasonable borders for the EU? What is reasonable? What is "European"?
- How can you weld together people and countries that have been at odds with each other for millenia.
- What common identity do you build this union on.
- You have to make sure the EU can function with more countries (as it is the necessity to achieve unanimity for all important decisions is a major pain in the backside.
Integrating a country like Iceland is easy (once we've adopted Lisbon) as it is a stable democracy with a demographic weight that won't change much.
Turkey on the other hand is less stable, less developed and rises a number of issues (borders etc). Right now I believe that between its institutional reforms, helping countries that recently joined and the general recession, the EU has things to do properly before letting the Turks join.
BTW, why do you think the Turks want to join so badly? Because the EU IS rich, IS stable and IS a guarantee of stability and security. Wealth is a powerful incentive :)
Kevin
Of course - that is my point though.
If the purpose of the EU is to keep the wealthy wealthy, then of course they are going to be somewhat reluctant to let Turkey in. Which of course they are - you don't stay wealthy by taking on countries that are not at or above your own level of wealth.
If the purpose of the EU is (at least in part) to create a true European Union for which success is measured by much more than the aggregate wealth of its members, but rather the aggregate well being of the citizens it encompasses, then taking on countries like Turkey makes perfect sense, since it will (presumably) raise their standards of living/quality of life, evn if it is at the expense of some small amount of the same amongst the wealthy club.
The fact that Iceland gets in easily, but isn't sure it wants in, while Turkey is quite sure they want in, but cannot get in, pretty much answers the question of what the EU actually *is*, I think.
Quote from: Berkut on May 07, 2009, 12:16:11 PM
Of course - that is my point though.
If the purpose of the EU is to keep the wealthy wealthy, then of course they are going to be somewhat reluctant to let Turkey in. Which of course they are - you don't stay wealthy by taking on countries that are not at or above your own level of wealth.
If the purpose of the EU is (at least in part) to create a true European Union for which success is measured by much more than the aggregate wealth of its members, but rather the aggregate well being of the citizens it encompasses, then taking on countries like Turkey makes perfect sense, since it will (presumably) raise their standards of living/quality of life, evn if it is at the expense of some small amount of the same amongst the wealthy club.
The fact that Iceland gets in easily, but isn't sure it wants in, while Turkey is quite sure they want in, but cannot get in, pretty much answers the question of what the EU actually *is*, I think.
In a perfect world the purpose of the EU would be to keep the wealthy wealthy. But unfortunately it's not that simple.
Quote from: Berkut on May 07, 2009, 12:16:11 PM
Of course - that is my point though.
If the purpose of the EU is to keep the wealthy wealthy, then of course they are going to be somewhat reluctant to let Turkey in. Which of course they are - you don't stay wealthy by taking on countries that are not at or above your own level of wealth.
If the purpose of the EU is (at least in part) to create a true European Union for which success is measured by much more than the aggregate wealth of its members, but rather the aggregate well being of the citizens it encompasses, then taking on countries like Turkey makes perfect sense, since it will (presumably) raise their standards of living/quality of life, evn if it is at the expense of some small amount of the same amongst the wealthy club.
The fact that Iceland gets in easily, but isn't sure it wants in, while Turkey is quite sure they want in, but cannot get in, pretty much answers the question of what the EU actually *is*, I think.
That wouldn't explain why they let in all those big and poor former Eastern Bloc nations. There is more to it than that.
Quote from: Valmy on May 07, 2009, 12:22:56 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 07, 2009, 12:16:11 PM
Of course - that is my point though.
If the purpose of the EU is to keep the wealthy wealthy, then of course they are going to be somewhat reluctant to let Turkey in. Which of course they are - you don't stay wealthy by taking on countries that are not at or above your own level of wealth.
If the purpose of the EU is (at least in part) to create a true European Union for which success is measured by much more than the aggregate wealth of its members, but rather the aggregate well being of the citizens it encompasses, then taking on countries like Turkey makes perfect sense, since it will (presumably) raise their standards of living/quality of life, evn if it is at the expense of some small amount of the same amongst the wealthy club.
The fact that Iceland gets in easily, but isn't sure it wants in, while Turkey is quite sure they want in, but cannot get in, pretty much answers the question of what the EU actually *is*, I think.
That wouldn't explain why they let in all those big and poor former Eastern Bloc nations. There is more to it than that.
Because they want to believe it is one thing, while in fact it is something else?
Hard to make the argument that Poland isn't in Europe, you know.
Although I bet people tried at the time.
Of course it isn't all of one or the other. It is a mix.
Quote from: Berkut on May 07, 2009, 12:30:38 PM
Of course it isn't all of one or the other. It is a mix.
Yep. The desire of the rich countries to stay rich is definitely a major factor but it is not the entirely what the Union is about.
Quote from: Viking on May 07, 2009, 04:39:42 AM
Iceland is the worlds 18th largest island and the 2nd largest island in Europe, more than 30 times larger than Gotland (sweden's largest).
I'll bear that in mind when Gotland secedes and asks to join the EU. ^_^
Quote from: Berkut on May 07, 2009, 11:48:30 AMOr is it something more?
It's something a lot more. Which is why Turkey is still nowhere near ready. They don't meet almost any of the basic criteria on human rights law or democratic practice.
Quote from: Berkut on May 07, 2009, 12:16:11 PMIf the purpose of the EU is to keep the wealthy wealthy, then of course they are going to be somewhat reluctant to let Turkey in. Which of course they are - you don't stay wealthy by taking on countries that are not at or above your own level of wealth.
Except for the 1995 enlargement (Sweden, Finland, Austria) and perhaps the 1973 enlargement (Denmark), the EU only ever admitted countries that were poorer than average. So it's not that the EU is not willing to lower the average wealth. However, the difference in wealth between Turkey and the average is much larger than in all the other enlargement rounds so it is certainly a factor why Turkey is not in.
Quoteevn if it is at the expense of some small amount of the same amongst the wealthy club.
That "small amount" wouldn't be that small in the case of Turkey because the difference is far larger than with any of the earlier enlargements.
QuoteThe fact that Iceland gets in easily, but isn't sure it wants in, while Turkey is quite sure they want in, but cannot get in, pretty much answers the question of what the EU actually *is*, I think.
Not really. Iceland is just a better fit in virtually every criterion than Turkey.
Anyway, I am not particularly knowledgable about Turkish politics, but according to Tunch Khan on Paradox, most Turks and even the elites don't even want to join the EU anymore.
Quote from: Valmy on May 07, 2009, 11:50:46 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 07, 2009, 11:48:30 AM
Is it to keep the already wealthy Western nations wealthy in competition with the US/China? If so, yeah, don't dilute yourselves with those poor brown people.
That is sort of what I look at it as. It is a club of the shrinking (except for France and a few others) and declining Euro countries coming together as an attempt to stay important in the modern world.
Thats a bit of a 1970s argument.
The post-colonial trough is long past, European countries are very relevant EU or no.
Quote from: Zanza2 on May 07, 2009, 12:57:57 PM
Anyway, I am not particularly knowledgable about Turkish politics, but according to Tunch Khan on Paradox, most Turks and even the elites don't even want to join the EU anymore.
I find that extremely hard to believe, unless the sample is made up entirely of islamists.
Quote from: Berkut on May 07, 2009, 12:16:11 PMThe fact that Iceland gets in easily, but isn't sure it wants in, while Turkey is quite sure they want in, but cannot get in, pretty much answers the question of what the EU actually *is*, I think.
Iceland is a stable democracy. Turkey's a country that last experienced a coup in the 90s. The AKP government's made a lot of progress on free speech and human rights but there are still extensive restrictions on what can be said and even what language it can be said it.
I'm all for Turkey joining but I think lesson of the last two enlargements was that it needs to be done only when the nations are ready and genuinely meet the criteria. I think they were rushed due to political criteria.
The truth is Iceland and Norway already meet the criteria to join the EU. Turkey doesn't.
The big issues I can think of which Turkey isn't meeting the required entry-level standards are freedom of speech, the rule of law (ie. that the military knows their place), the protection of national minorities and freedom of the press. When the Copenhagen process's criteria's met then, by all means they should joing. Until then it would be foolish to let them in and further dilute what the EU's trying to achieve.
Quote from: Delirium on May 07, 2009, 01:04:27 PM
I find that extremely hard to believe, unless the sample is made up entirely of islamists.
It depends who you define as Islamists. The AKP government's made more progress than any other Turkish government since they started seeking accession.
The problem is disillusionment with the EU, we need to let them know that we want them in the Union, when they meet the set criteria. Also I think Turkey's far larger population of hard-core secularists are more of a problem than the Islamists. They are unhappy with the EU seeming to side with the Islamist government instead of the secular army and they are, overwhelmingly, very nationalist who don't like EU policy on protecting minority rights or changing the Turkish constitution to allow far freer speech.
With Turkey not being allowed in and Iceland fast tracked a relevant argument that can be made: Cut off the rich part of Istanbul then it (the part, inte Turkey) can join no problems (it being of the same population size as Iceland and relativly rich)
Quote from: Delirium on May 07, 2009, 01:04:27 PM
Quote from: Zanza2 on May 07, 2009, 12:57:57 PM
Anyway, I am not particularly knowledgable about Turkish politics, but according to Tunch Khan on Paradox, most Turks and even the elites don't even want to join the EU anymore.
I find that extremely hard to believe, unless the sample is made up entirely of islamists.
Well, you never know, being told to go fuck yourselves for 22 years could be a little annoying.
(Yes, I know, 16 for EU, but Turkey applied for the EEC before that).
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 07, 2009, 01:07:24 PM
Also I think Turkey's far larger population of hard-core secularists are more of a problem than the Islamists. They are unhappy with the EU seeming to side with the Islamist government instead of the secular army and they are, overwhelmingly, very nationalist who don't like EU policy on protecting minority rights or changing the Turkish constitution to allow far freer speech.
Damn those "hardcore" secularists!
Quote from: Berkut on May 07, 2009, 01:19:08 PM
Damn those "hardcore" secularists!
Secularism as you point out is hardly the problem*, but in Turkey it goes by the hand with nationalism, which is a huge obstacle with it comes to accession (Kurds, Cyprus, Freedom of Speech and Kemal Attatürk, and so on).
* Except when it comes to military influence, which is also something the EU is wary off.
Quote from: ulmont on May 07, 2009, 01:17:50 PM
Well, you never know, being told to go fuck yourselves for 22 years could be a little annoying.
(Yes, I know, 16 for EU, but Turkey applied for the EEC before that).
They've been told to fuck themselves for so long because they've never complied with the conditions. And since the EU is not static, those conditions are actually growing faster than Turkey is able to meet them.
Attatürk worship is very freaky. I couldn't imagine typical westerners doing the same to that extent for Churchill or FDR or whoever.
Iormlund, can you fix your quotes in your post above?
The Lisbon Treaty would make the EU into a real superpower.
We need to stop this.
If Iceland joins, you'll have to stop whaling.
That's a plus. :rainbowwarrior:
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 07, 2009, 01:07:24 PM
Also I think Turkey's far larger population of hard-core secularists are more of a problem than the Islamists. They are unhappy with the EU seeming to side with the Islamist government instead of the secular army and they are, overwhelmingly, very nationalist who don't like EU policy on protecting minority rights or changing the Turkish constitution to allow far freer speech.
So basically they are like any ultra-nationalists in existing EU countries only that they live in a country where their oppressive ideas have come to fruition already?
You can't seriously believe that Turkey is an european country, or have anything in common with western culture.
Quote from: Siege on May 07, 2009, 01:33:24 PM
The Lisbon Treaty would make the EU into a real superpower.
We need to stop this.
The EU has no desire to be a super power. The European people would never want to field the sort of armed forces necessary. That and the Lisbon treaty doesn't really do anything drastic to its structure.
We should create a huge colon sanitaire in Eastern Europe to keep the hordes out.
Quote from: Berkut on May 07, 2009, 01:19:08 PM
Damn those "hardcore" secularists!
Yeah. They're the ones who support the army trying to overthrow a democratically elected government because they nominate a President whose wife wears a headscarf. They're also, overwhelmingly, the ones who oppose any rights to the Kurds (again with the army backing them) and who dislike the idea of allowing free speech that 'denigrates' the Turkish Republic. So, for example, the Armenian genocide's off-limits, so is certain criticism of the military, or acknowledging known facts about Ataturk's life.
As I say the mildly Islamist AKP government has done more to bring Turkey in line with EU standards than any previous (by definition) secular government. I'd say they've almost done more than all previous governments put together since the EU was the EEC. The sad thing is that Turkey's growing disillusioned over entry at all and, as I say, they should be reassured that as soon as they're ready (ie. they meet the Copenhagen criteria) they can join.
But we should repeat the mistakes of the Balkan states, Cyprus or Romania. Not one of the fully deserved entry.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 07, 2009, 02:24:19 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 07, 2009, 01:19:08 PM
Damn those "hardcore" secularists!
Yeah. They're the ones who support the army trying to overthrow a democratically elected government because they nominate a President whose wife wears a headscarf.
Really?!?!?!
Wow, that is pretty hardcore. Tell me more about the army trying to stage a coup because of a headscarf.
I don't understand Berk :mellow:
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 07, 2009, 02:42:45 PM
I don't understand Berk :mellow:
His irrational rage makes him rage irrationally.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 07, 2009, 02:42:45 PM
I don't understand Berk :mellow:
Secular dudes that are not afraid of the islamotards?
We could be friends.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 07, 2009, 02:42:45 PM
I don't understand Berk :mellow:
What isn't to understand? I am asking for more information about this coup over someone wearing a headscarf, which you cited as evidence of the hardcoredness of the "secularists". If they were willing to have a coup over that, it would certainly be a great example of them being incredibly hardcore.
These are all from the Economist. I won't link because I'm getting access through my uni's library site so no-one else would be able to read them.
31st of March, 07:
QuoteMeanwhile, the bold domestic and judicial reforms enacted by the Erdogan government secured Turkey the prized start of EU membership talks in October 2005. The economy is doing nicely, with annual growth running at 5% or more. Recent opinion polls show that the AK Party continues to have a big lead over its rivals.
Some say that the army's real reason for opposing Mr Erdogan is its fear of a further erosion of military power once the compliant Mr Sezer is gone. What can the army do to stop Mr Erdogan? Short of a military coup, precious little. As Umit Boyner, a prominent woman industrialist, says, "The days of coups are over." This is not to say the generals won't do their utmost to make life miserable for Mr Erdogan if he becomes president. Besides keeping up their anti-government rhetoric, they may shun presidential functions or National Security Council meetings. So Turkey could become more tense, which may be why, despite the AK Party's popularity, most Turks are against Mr Erdogan's presidency. It also explains why, with two weeks left for candidates to register, Mr Erdogan has not yet declared. "Will he or won't he?" is the hottest question on the Ankara cocktail circuit.
Even his supporters see plenty of reasons why he should not. Mr Erdogan has unrivalled charisma and could lead the AK Party to another big victory in November. Many businessmen fret that without him the party, a loose coalition of nationalists, Islamists and liberals, could fall apart, plunging Turkey back into instability. As president, Mr Erdogan's autocratic instinct might spoil relations with Abdullah Gul, the foreign minister, who is his most likely successor and is no poodle.
Indeed, a growing number of voices say that the statesmanlike Mr Gul would make a better president. Determinedly pro-European and unsullied by corruption charges, Mr Gul has moral authority as the man who led the rebellion against a former Islamist prime minister, Necmettin Erbakan, to found the AK Party. Unlike Mr Erdogan he speaks fluent English and has spent time abroad. The only hitch is that his wife, too, covers her head. But so do over half of Turkish women.
[/B]
These two are from the 5th of May of that year:
QuoteOn April 27th the army suggested that it might do the same again. Just before midnight, after a day of inconclusive parliamentary voting for a new president, the army's general staff posted a declaration on its website that attacked the nomination of Abdullah Gul, the foreign minister, for the presidency, and hinted none too subtly at a possible coup against the mildly Islamist Justice and Development (AK) government led by Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the prime minister who nominated Mr Gul. On May 1st the constitutional court annulled the first round of parliamentary voting for the president, saying not enough members were present. Mr Erdogan promptly said he would call a snap parliamentary election. Street protests, first in Ankara and then in Istanbul, have heightened tension. The cities' coffee houses are buzzing with conspiracy theories.
Given the fractious state of the main opposition parties, and his government's record over the past four years, pollsters expect Mr Erdogan to win another thumping majority. He may then choose to stick with Mr Gul for the presidency, or he may look for another candidate. But he is unlikely to pick one who meets the objections of the army and the secularists.
Turkey's secularists have always mistrusted the AK Party, which has Islamist roots and in government has sometimes toyed with moderate Islamist measures. They especially dislike Mr Gul and Mr Erdogan because their wives sport the Muslim headscarf, which in Ataturk's republic is banned in public buildings. They fret at the prospect of such people controlling not only the government and parliament, as now, but the presidency as well. They fear that once the AK Party has got that triple crown, it will show its true colours--and that they will be rather greener. Given that a fundamental reading of Islamic texts sees no distinction between religion and the state, and that fundamentalism is spreading in the Muslim world, it is understandable that people should entertain such fears.
Yet they do not justify a military intervention such as that of April 27th. However desirable it may be to preserve Ataturk's secular legacy, that cannot come at the expense of overriding the normal process of democracy--even if that process produces bad, ineffective, corrupt or mildly Islamist governments. Algeria, where 150,000 people died in a civil war after an election which Islamists won was annulled in 1992, holds a sharp lesson about what can happen when soldiers suppress popular will. Of course, Turkey is not Algeria; but armies everywhere should beware of subverting elections. It is up to voters, not soldiers, to punish governments--and they will now have the opportunity to do so in Turkey.
They may not want to. Mr Erdogan's government has been Turkey's most successful in half a century. After years of macroeconomic instability, growth has been steady and strong, inflation has been controlled and foreign investment has shot up. Even more impressive are the judicial and constitutional reforms that the AK government has pushed through. Corruption remains a blemish, but there is no sign of the government trying to overturn Turkey's secular order. The record amply justifies Mr Erdogan's biggest achievement: to persuade the EU to open membership talks, over 40 years after a much less impressive Turkey first expressed its wish to join.
[/B]
QuoteA military coup was avoided, but an early election looms. Turkey's problems are postponed, not solved
ITS prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, said it was "a shot fired at democracy." Others labelled it an "e-coup". Whatever you call it, a threat to intervene against Turkey's mildly Islamist government posted on the general staff's website on April 27th has hurt democracy and deepened the chasm between the secular and the pious. A defiant Mr Erdogan has called for an early general election. It may take place in July, instead of the scheduled date, November 4th. Opinion polls suggest that his AK Party will again beat its secular rivals.
How would the army respond to that? Seasoned Turkey-watchers who once scoffed at the notion of another coup say that it now can't be ruled out. Many admit that the European Union is partly to blame. EU dithering over Turkish membership has dented enthusiasm: when Olli Rehn, the enlargement commissioner, scolded the army for its meddling, few paid attention.
The row began when Mr Erdogan nominated his foreign minister, Abdullah Gul, to replace President Ahmet Necdet Sezer, who steps down on May 16th. Mr Gul once flirted with political Islam; his wife wears a headscarf (as do 55% of Turkish women). That was deemed to pose an existential threat to the secular republic. Deniz Baykal, the leader of the main opposition Republican People's Party (CHP), succeeded in blocking Mr Gul's election in a first parliamentary vote on April 27th, claiming, dubiously, to the constitutional court that parliament lacked a quorum.
It was up to the court to decide if Mr Baykal was right. But the generals were taking no chances. In their ultimatum, delivered before the 11 judges gave their verdict on May 1st, the army listed examples of how the government was supposedly allowing the country to drift towards an Islamic theocracy. When the court then ruled in favour of the opposition, nobody was surprised .
Nearly a million secularist Turks gathered in Istanbul on April 29th, to stage their second mass protest against the government in a fortnight. That makes it hard for Mr Erdogan and his AK Party to dismiss the crisis as a brazen attempt by the army to reassert its influence. Chanting "no to coups" and "no to sharia" the demonstrators said their free-wheeling lifestyles were under threat. Many were women who say they are the most vulnerable of all. Some cited attempts by the AK to create "alcohol-free zones", others a bid to outlaw adultery. Many declared that an AK president, prime minister and parliamentary speaker was more than they could bear.
Yet none was able to name a single law promoted by the party that directly challenged the secular tenets of the constitution--because there is none.
The deeper malaise felt by these urban secular "white Turks" is really rooted in the millions-strong migration from rural Anatolia to the big cities in past decades. Assertively pious and aggressively entrepreneurial, this new class, championed by Mr Erdogan, has been steadily chipping away at the economic and political power of the secular elite. "The white Turks see women with headscarves walking dogs [and] jogging in their neighbourhoods and it drives them mad," says Baskin Oran, a liberal academic in Ankara. That shock may fade; in time it will become more difficult for the generals to turn secular hostility to Anatolian carpetbaggers into paranoia about creeping Islam, he reckons.
The secularists have weaknesses too. The CHP, founded by Turkey's republican hero, Kemal Ataturk, has been out of power for more than a decade. Kemalism once transformed Turkey, but has now failed to transform itself, says Mr Oran.
While the cocky Mr Baykal shows no signs of self-reproach, an unprecedented bout of soul-searching prompted by the cyber-coup is beginning to grip the AK. During four and a half years it has failed to assuage secular suspicions and to reach out to the opposition. The party should have realised that the country was not ready to have an AK president, a party chief concedes. The present rumpus could have been averted had Mr Erdogan picked a presidential candidate outside his party. Now the prime minister suggests changing the constitution to let the people choose the head of state themselves.
That might be a step forward, but sceptical liberals say Mr Erdogan's views on democracy are selective. "Where was he when Kurdish politicians were being arrested and beaten and Nokta [a dissident magazine] raided by police?" asks one.
The government's response to the army's ultimatum was unusually crisp. Cemil Cicek, the justice minister called it "unacceptable" and reminded the generals that they were constitutionally bound to take their orders from the prime minister, not vice versa.
It is not just the army's taste for politics that is worrying. The top general recently said a military attack on Kurdish rebels based in northern Iraq was "necessary" and "useful". Though he agreed that the constitution gave parliament authority over the armed forces, many fear that the army may decide to attack all the same. "They are itching to," whispers a westerner who observes Turkish security. This may explain why America's response to the political crisis has been so lame. "The last thing they want is a quarrel with the Turkish military," a European official observes. The nightmare for America is Turkish and American soldiers exchanging fire in Iraq. Based on the past week's events, nothing can be ruled out.
Of course the attempts to ban adultery and to create alcohol free zones were shot down, by opposition within his own party as much as opposition from outside it.
From the 12th of May:
QuoteThe trouble escalated on April 27th, when the army general staff posted a dramatic statement on its website sketching out the dangers posed by "Islamic fanatics" to Ataturk's secular republic, and vowing to intervene if need be. The army has booted out four governments since 1960. Yet its latest outburst took even the savviest politicians by surprise.
A bigger surprise followed. Rather than roll over like its predecessors, the government is taking the generals head on. First came a statement reminding the brass-hats that they were answerable to the government and not vice-versa. Then Mr Erdogan's AK Party tried once again to elect Mr Gul as president, even though the army had made clear that it did not want a man whose wife wears the Islamic headscarf--as Mr Gul's wife does
[/B]
From the 9th of June:
QuoteThe question echoes around the Ankara cocktail circuit, but it raises a host of others. Was the ultimatum delivered under pressure from hot-headed junior officers threatening to take matters into their own hands? Does the army really believe that the AK government is steering Turkey away from Ataturk's revered secular republic towards religious rule? Was it all a crude stab at wrecking Turkey's chances of joining the European Union? And, again, will the army invade northern Iraq?
The diary of Ozden Ornek, a retired naval chief, leaked in late March to Nokta, a Turkish weekly, suggests several factors may have been involved. Excerpts include details of two separate planned coups concocted in 2004 that were quashed by the then chief of the general staff, Hilmi Ozkok. Conversations between the plotters show suspicions of both AK and General Ozkok. Indeed, his enthusiasm for democracy and the EU leads them to conclude that he is an "Islamist" too.
Mr Ornek insists the diary is fake and is suing Nokta for libel. But General Ozkok has hinted otherwise, saying that the claims "needed to be investigated". Meanwhile, military prosecutors have filed separate charges against Lale Sariibrahimoglu, a respected military analyst, for her comments to Nokta (which has since been closed down). She could spend two years in jail if convicted on charges of "insulting members of the military".
The notion that "the army knows what is best for the people and that they cannot be trusted to govern themselves lies at the heart of their continued meddling in politics," observes Umit Kardas, a retired military prosecutor. It was such thinking (drilled into young officers early on) that led the generals to enshrine a right to intervene in the regulations that they drafted for themselves in the 1980s.
The EU insists that any such right must be scrapped if Turkey is ever to join its club. So must the system of military courts, which shield soldiers from prosecution by civilians. The chief of the general staff should be answerable to the defence minister, not the other way round. Not surprisingly, the generals' feelings towards the EU are now mixed. Joining the EU would crown Ataturk's dream of cementing Turkey's place in the West. Yet they want this "only if it can be on their own terms--and that means retaining all their privileges," according to Ali Bayramoglu, a long-time observer of the army.
Mr Erdogan became the first political leader to have trimmed the army's powers, when his government reduced the National Security Council (through which the army barks orders) to an advisory role. This and other dramatic reforms helped to persuade the EU to open membership talks with Turkey in 2005.
Fears that their influence might be watered down even more have transformed some generals into the EU's fiercest critics. None more so than Yasar Buyukanit, who took over from General Ozkok last year. His salvoes against creeping Islamisation are often accompanied by veiled claims that the EU is trying to dismember Turkey by supporting Kurds and other minorities.
The army's sense of vulnerability has been heightened by a deepening rift with America over Iraq. During the cold war, the generals (in charge of NATO's second-biggest army) were America's chief interlocutors, which bolstered their influence at home. Anti-American feelings exploded among Turks in 2003, when American soldiers arrested 11 Turkish special-force troops in northern Iraq, on suspicion of plotting to murder a Kurdish politician. Most Turks saw the move as punishment for Turkey's refusal earlier that year to let American troops cross its territory to open a second front in Iraq. Trust between the two armies has yet to be restored. Tuncer Kilinc, the last general to head the National Security Council, told an audience in London recently that Turkey should pull out of NATO and make friends with Russia, Iran, China and India instead.
The army's anti-Western stance resonates well with ordinary Turks, who are disgusted by America's behaviour behaviour in Iraq and by the EU's dithering over Turkish membership. The army is still rated as the country's most popular institution. To the millions of urban middle-class Turks who staged anti-government protests last month, the army remains the best guarantor of Ataturk's secular republic.
Yet, as Mr Ornek reportedly noted in his diary, the deliberate isolation of officers from civilian life has confined them to an artificial world in which civilians are "unpatriotic, lazy and venal" and the armed forces are "industrious, selfless and worthy". As he then mused, "What can we achieve with such thoughts?" Yet if the army is to continue to command the affection of its citizens it needs to change with the times. The generals could not have missed the many placards during last month's protests that read "No to sharia, No to coups." A drive to weed out corrupt officers launched under General Ozkok is an encouraging sign that the army is prepared to be more self-critical. But respecting the election result, no matter what it is, remains the biggest challenge of all.
I'll link to these because I think they're free on the Economist's website:
http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11745570
QuoteMost observers expect it to go against the AKP. Turkey has banned no fewer than 24 parties in the past 50 years, including the AKP's two forerunners. In 23 of these cases, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the bans violated its charter.[/B]
Yet Mr Yalcinkaya's indictment lacks hard evidence to show that the AKP is working to reverse secular rule. Much of his case rests on the words, not the actions, of Mr Erdogan and his lieutenants. Among Mr Erdogan's listed "crimes" is his opinion that "Turkey as a modern Muslim nation can serve as an example for the harmony of civilisations." That is hardly a call for jihad. The AKP has promoted Islamic values, but it has never attempted to pass laws inspired by the Koran.
None of this seems to impress Turkey's meddlesome generals, who are widely believed to be the driving force behind the "judicial coup" against the AKP. This follows the "e-coup" they threatened last year by issuing a warning on the internet against making Mr Gul president. Some renegade generals are also involved in the so-called Ergenekon group; 86 members were charged this week with plotting a coup (see article).
The generals and their allies believe that nothing less than the future of Ataturk's secular republic is at stake. Similar rumblings were heard when the now defunct pro-Islamic Welfare party first came to power in 1996. It was ejected a year later in a bloodless "velvet coup" and banned on similar charges to those now levelled at the AKP. But with each intervention the Islamists come back stronger.
Unlike their pro-secular rivals, Islamists have been able to reinvent themselves to appeal to a growing base of voters. Nobody has done this more successfully than Mr Erdogan with the AKP. An Islamic cleric by training, Mr Erdogan became Istanbul's mayor when Welfare won a municipal election in 1994. He was booted out in 1997, and jailed briefly a year later for reciting a nationalist poem in public that was deemed to incite "religious hatred".
It was a turning-point. Mr Erdogan defected from Welfare with fellow moderates to found the AKP in 2001. He and his friends said that they no longer believed in mixing religion with politics and that Turkish membership of the European Union was the AKP's chief goal. And when the AKP won the general election of November 2002, it formed a single-party government that did something unusual for Turkey: it kept its word.
The death penalty was abolished; the army's powers were trimmed; women were given more rights than at any time since Kemal Ataturk, the founder of the secular Turkish state, made both sexes equal before the law. Despite Mr Erdogan's calls for women to have "at least three children", abortion remains legal and easy. This silent revolution eventually shamed the EU into opening formal membership talks with Turkey in 2005, an achievement that had eluded all the AKP's predecessors in government.
The government's economic record was impressive, too. The economy bounced back from its nadir in 2001, growing by a steady average annual rate of 6% or more. Inflation was tamed (though it has crept back up recently). Above all, foreign direct investment, previously paltry, hit record levels. For a while, Turkey seemed to have become a stable and prosperous sort of place. That is surely why 47% of voters backed the AKP in July 2007, a big jump from only 34% in 2002.
[/B]
http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11848685
QuoteThe verdict should help to end the political upheaval that has gripped Turkey since March, when the country's chief prosecutor asked the court to bar the prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan; the president, Abdullah Gul; and scores of other named officials from politics for five years. They were accused of undermining the secular republic created by Kemal Ataturk 85 years ago out of the ruins of the Ottoman empire.
To many, the prosecution was an attempt at "a judicial coup"—arguably the most serious assault on Turkey's turbulent democracy since the army seized power from elected politicians in 1980. Despite the subsequent restoration of democracy, the army demanded, and obtained, the resignation of the Islamist-tinged prime minister, Necmettin Erbakan, in 1997.
The army's hand has been apparent in the latest manoeuvring against AK. But this time Turkey's meddlesome generals have been humiliated. Despite their displeasure AK was re-elected with an enhanced majority in 2007. The army failed to block the appointment of Mr Gul as president, despite an internet message that appeared to threaten military intervention. Short of such a hard coup, the army has no cards left to play.
That said, the court's decision is not an outright victory for AK, despite its supporters' excited chants of "we will continue". Ten of the constitutional court's judges agreed that the party was guilty of anti-secular activity; they disagreed only on the punishment.
The verdict should be seen as a stern warning to the party not to push its divisive religious agenda. Earlier this year the party forced through a law allowing girls to wear the Islamic headscarf at university, which was later struck down by the constitutional court.
[/B]
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11632799
QuoteON THE evening of March 4th, a black Mercedes swept into the Ankara headquarters of Turkey's land-forces command. It was carrying Osman Paksut, the second-highest judge on the constitutional court. His assignation with the land-forces commander, General Ilker Basbug, was meant to be secret—all the security cameras were cut off as he entered and left the building—for it came at a highly delicate moment. The secular opposition had just petitioned the court to overturn a law passed by the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) to allow women to wear the Islamic-style headscarf at universities.
Less than four weeks later, on March 31st, the court said that it would take a case brought by the chief prosecutor to ban the AKP and 71 named officials, including the prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and the president, Abdullah Gul. The case rests on the claim that the defendants are trying to impose sharia law in Turkey.
This decision makes the meeting between Mr Paksut and General Basbug, who is tipped to replace Yasar Buyukanit as chief of the general staff when he retires in August, all the more suspicious. Indeed, it reinforces the view of many Turks that lying behind the case is an attempt by the generals to use the courts to overthrow Turkey's mildly Islamist government in a "judicial coup". This follows the generals' threatened "e-coup" of April 2007, when they tried unsuccessfully to stop Mr Gul becoming president.
Few Turks would have known of the meeting had news of it not been broken by a small daily newspaper, Taraf. Since its launch last November under the motto "to think is to take sides", Taraf (which means side in Turkish) has published a string of stories exposing the army's efforts to undermine the AKP government. It has thus become even bigger than "the most honest and prestigious newspaper" that was the dream of its 39-year-old owner, Basar Arslan. Amid speculation that the army may be preparing a direct coup, Taraf has become a standard-bearer for the rising numbers of young and increasingly vocal Turks who say the people, not the generals, should determine the country's future. Last week 7,000 of them gathered in central Istanbul in a rally against coups, many of them brandishing Taraf.
The paper, whose news coverage remains spotty, made its biggest splash so far when it recently published a document detailing alleged plans by the general staff to mobilise public opinion against the government and its sympathisers. The blueprint was drawn up after the AKP was returned to power for a second five-year term in July 2007. In a limp rebuttal, the top brass said it had "not approved" any such document, but stopped short of denying its existence. Indeed, much of the paper's information comes straight from disgruntled "deep throats" within the army.
Such leaks have dented the army's image and fuelled debate over a possible rift within the high command. Internal divisions surfaced last year when Nokta, a weekly, published excerpts from the diary of a former navy commander in which he described two abortive coup attempts in 2004. Soon afterwards, the magazine was forced to close and its editor prosecuted for libel. Might Taraf suffer a similar fate?
Taraf is already a stronger institution than Nokta. "We are changing the rules the mainstream media work by in this country," declares Yasemin Congar, its combative deputy managing editor. Circulation, now at an average 24,000 copies every day, is growing. And this comes in the teeth of a smear campaign accusing Taraf of being financed by a powerful Islamist fraternity close to the AKP and of taking its orders from the United States.
Yet it would be easy to overstate the influence of Taraf, as indeed of civil society as a whole. "Turkish civil society barely has the strength to redirect major roads, let alone stop the generals from acting if they see it as in the national interest," argues Howard Eissenstat, a New York-based historian. "Moreover, the high regard for the military and the particular tone of Turkish nationalism suggest that public reaction to a hard coup would be more of a ripple than a wave." Then again, as Ms Congar noted in a recent column, "there are a few good men" in the army, whose view of Turkey's national interest tends to favour democracy, and who will keep leaking information to Taraf.
I think that the hard-core secularists, and the hard core of secularists is far more dangerous to Turkey's future EU membership than the Islamists, whose most divisive acts seem to have involved headscarves.
As a government the AK Party's been very impressive. They seem to have lost a lot of steam over the last two years. Which is why the EU needs to reassure them that continued reform will lead to membership and I'm less fond of Erdogan than Gul but I think to describe the Islamists in Turkey as the source of anti-EU and utterly bizarre anti-Western views isn't accurate.
Part of the problem could be English terminology. Secularists I think should mean something like what exists in the US, were government is generally disinterested in religion. I think what many Turks are is closer to the laicite of French history which is different from secularism. I think the US separates church and state by not being interested in church, necessarily, while some French leaders and Turkish 'secularists' believe the opposition means the state must oppose religion and its expression.
Edit: And it's worth saying the army's intervention totally blindsided the EU. They understood secularists weren't happy with Gul's nomination but as far as they were concerned he was a very successful foreign secretary, he was cosmopolitan, urbane, a good negotiator, fluent in several languages. They couldn't understand how people could oppose him and were stunned that the army felt strongly enough to threaten a coup.
So where is the part where they supported a coup only because of a headscarf?
Seems to me that absent some dubious semantics trying to make the issue as ridiculous as possible, the "hardcore secularists" might have had some reasons for their positions beyond headscarves.
Seems like a more honest and nuanced approach might be to recognize that the issue is rather complex and headscarves are rather clearly just a symbol of the underlying ideological conflicts. Given that in fact Islamism is growing and is generally rather hostile to Western democracy, is it entirely unreasonable to think that their position might be more fairly served than by simply dismissing them as hardcore "secularists" intent on overthrowing the government because of headscarves?
Indeed, the articles you linked largely do that - other than some choice stupidity about headscarfs, which they rather gleefully bleat on and on about.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 07, 2009, 03:29:39 PM
Part of the problem could be English terminology.
Yeah, I think that might be "part" of the problem, with those "hardcore secualrists". Although - that is your term, and I think you are a pretty good speaker of English, so I am unsure why you would use that term if you meant something else, like nationalist, or even reflexively despised mean military people.
Quote from: Berkut on May 07, 2009, 03:53:53 PM
or even reflexively despised mean military people.
The military does have a long tradition of political interference in Turkey, with a coup about once a generation. The most recent one was described as a "post-modern coup" by the CIA factbook, but still, "engineer[ing] the ouster" of the government isn't the role of the military in most systems.
Quote from: ulmont on May 07, 2009, 03:57:22 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 07, 2009, 03:53:53 PM
or even reflexively despised mean military people.
The military does have a long tradition of political interference in Turkey, with a coup about once a generation. The most recent one was described as a "post-modern coup" by the CIA factbook, but still, "engineer[ing] the ouster" of the government isn't the role of the military in most systems.
True enough. Of course, as a nominal democracy largely populated by Islamists, they are in a rather precarious position.
In other words, they don't have anything reflecting "most" systems to work with.
Which isn't to say that they are right to toss out government they find to be too islamist, but I think it is unfair to simply demand that they pretend like Turkey is a perfectly normal Western Democracy, if by doing so Turkey will become not a democracy. It is an interesting question - what does a democracy do if the people vote in a not-democracy?
Well first of all when discussing Islamism's opposition to democracy in relation to Turkey I think it's worth remembering that it's the Islamists who've won two elections and support direct elections for the Presidency while the secularists in the army threatened to make their opposition to Mr. Gul lead to a coup.
What do you think their argument is? That Americans and Europeans and Islamists have got together to dismember Turkey and threaten their secular republic? That the most liberalising government and arguably the most successful in decades is actually a Hamas front?
But you're right, it was overly glib of me to say it was all about the headscarf. But it was a particular focus of opposition. I mean read this article and tell me who seems the more fanatical:
QuoteTurkish army warns of 'centres of evil' over Gul
By Donald Macintyre
Turkey's parliament is on the point of infuriating the country's powerful military and much of its secular public this afternoon by electing Abdullah Gul, the Foreign Minister and a practising Muslim, as President.
The army signalled its displeasure yesterday by choosing the eve of the vote to publish a declaration by its Chief-of-Staff Yasar Buyukanit, that "our nation has been watching the behaviour of centres of evil who systematically try to corrode the secular nature of the Turkish Republic".
The election of Mr Gul, a 56-year-old economist who has a similar Islamic background to his close ally, the Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, will mark a further advance for their ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) which last month secured a second term with almost 47 per cent of the national vote.
Mr Gul is seen in most of Europe as a democrat of moderate inclinations who strongly supports Turkey's accession to the EU and whose election as head of state - an office with substantial veto powers - is likely to advance the slow process of meeting the conditions set for entry.
But his candidacy has stirred up strong opposition from the army, which sees itself as the guardian of the unequivocally non-religious constitution enshrined more than 80 years ago by the country's founding father, Kemal Ataturk.
"Nefarious plans to ruin Turkey's secular and democratic nature emerge in different forms every day," General Buyukanit, said in his statement to mark the annual Victory Day on Thursday. "The military will, just as it has so far, keep its determination to guard social, democratic and secular Turkey."
The tone was similar to that of a statement issued by the general staff at the end of April after Mr Gul triggered mass protests by secular Turks by originally announcing his intention to run as President.
Since the general election - which was called by Mr Erdogan after the opposition Republican People's Party (BHP) created deadlock by blocking Mr Gul's election as President - the army, while not resiling from its earlier statements, had largely refrained from intervening publicly until yesterday. The AKP's victory was partly attributed to the rapid growth - at annual levels of around seven per cent - in an economy which was on the brink of collapse in the late Nineties.
Diplomats here have tended to discount fears of a coup by the army - which has dislodged four governments since the 1960s - but expect Mr Gul's election to be a source of continuing friction with the military, which has already seen a few of its powers to intervene in civilian life curtailed by the government - for example by the reduction of its presence on the National Security Council.
Much of the focus of popular secular discontent has been the fact that Mr Gul's wife, Hayrunisa, wears a headscarf in public, long a key symbol for religious women which is officially banned in schools, universities and public offices. She is already under near-irresistible pressure to avoid creating a flashpoint by staying away from Thursday's Victory Day ceremony, which commemorates the decisive defeat of the Greek army at the Battle of Dumlupinar in 1922.
Mrs Gul, who like her husband speaks good English and Arabic, took a case to the European Court of Human Rights in 2002 after being denied admission to university while wearing a headscarf but abandoned it when Mr Gul became Foreign Minister because the Foreign Ministry was defending the case.
The army's last warning statement in April was strongly condemned by the EU as an unwarranted interference in the civil democratic process but the US administration remained conspicuously silent. It is less than clear whether this was because of doubts about even a democratic and moderate Islamic regime in Ankara, or because of lively fears that alienating the Turkish military could threaten yet more conflict in Iraq.
QuoteAlthough - that is your term, and I think you are a pretty good speaker of English, so I am unsure why you would use that term if you meant something else, like nationalist, or even reflexively despised mean military people.
They use secularism as the fig-leaf for the military's intervention in politics, including coups and threatened coups.
I think a common analysis is that the government that the Turks voted in has, surprisingly given its Islamist leanings, been the most democratic government Turkey has ever had.
To take an example of the women's rights that the articles have mentioned the AK Party made women legally equal to men, in 2002. Until then, apparently, women in both civil and criminal law were inferior to the males in their family, especially whoever was recognised as the 'head of the household'. In 2004 they reformed the Penal Code by removing all references to chastity, morality, shame and customs. They started to treat sexual crimes against women as violations of that woman's rights not as a crime against her family. It banned marital rape, increased sentences for honour killings and said women had as much of a right to sexual autonomy (from their family/society) as men.
Now if thats the face of un-democratic Islamism, I think I can deal with it.
The sad thing about Erdogan's recent failures has been that he's actually appeasing the secularist nationalists. He's started taking an increasinly anti-Kurdish line, despite earlier suggestions that he might try to enhance free speech he seems to be happy with not talking about Armenia or disrespect to the Republic or any of that. Though Turkey does seem to be at the point of normalising relationships with Armenia which could help move things forward on that point. They do seem to have run out of steam lately, but I think the EU's partly to blame for the recent turn to nationalism (I think we've toyed with Turkey too much).
And, interestingly, the opposition seems to be getting its act together. The CHP party leader allowed a woman in a headscarf into a party celebrating the CHP's founding. Though he was promptly attacked for abandoning Ataturk's principles by the parties ultras.
What I don't get is the completely one-sided portrayal you insist on casting this issue in - the Islamists are all uniformly earnest moderate democrats being cruely threatened by the ogres of the military, who use their concern about eroding Turkeys historical secularism as "fig leaf" for their meddling.
Maybe the Islamists are using their "moderacy" as a fig leaf to cover their desire to erode Turkey historically secular status. I don't know, but apparently you guys do, so well that you are comfortable casting this conflict in the starkest possible terms.
I am not buying it. Frankly, if *I* was a "hardcore secularist" in Turkey, I would share their concerns - and I notice that the article you quote points out that it is NOT strictly the military upset about this, but many of the largely secular public as well.
Quote from: Jacob on May 07, 2009, 04:03:33 PM
I think a common analysis is that the government that the Turks voted in has, surprisingly given its Islamist leanings, been the most democratic government Turkey has ever had.
Actually secularists often are far more worrying and dangerous. I will take a 'Christian Democrat' Muslim over a rabid nationalist loony or even worse, a Turanist, any day. Some of those Turkish secularists are too near to Nazism for our peace of mind... and there is also that little thing about denying the Armenian genocide too. Quite frankly, is astonishing that Americans of all people are willing to extend such a free pass to Holocaust deniers.
Quote from: Slargos on May 07, 2009, 10:02:51 AM
Quote from: Alatriste on May 07, 2009, 07:57:49 AM
Quote from: Slargos on May 07, 2009, 05:31:42 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 07, 2009, 05:23:21 AM
Gotta love the EU...
"Saddled with a debt-driven economy? We'll take you if you're white. Swarthy middle-eastern NATO members need not apply."
If that were only so.
But if you were right, the greeks, spaniards, italians and irish would've never been invited.
Spain is a swarthy south-western NATO member!
Besides, Turks and Spaniards (notice the capital 'T' and 'S' you Nazi) are pretty much teh same color. The idea Turks are dark skinned Arabs is a figment of the good Count's imagination (or a trap set to show we care about colors... a curious trap, since he's the one minding them but whatever)
Oh, there is that little question about numbers: Iceland, with its 300,000 inhabitants is just an small snack. Turkey with its fast growing 75,000,000 inhabitants, is almost too much to bite (and has borders with Syria, Iraq... )
Oh, and Iceland has rich fisheries too :pirate
:jaron:
Your spanish inanities will not be tolerated for much longer, dunecoon.
Bring it on, kid. Last time a Swede used that tone with us it was 1634 and a few of his soldiers did live to regret it.
Lützen was in 1632 :contract:
Epic fail, Slargos, the Spanish were not involved in Lützen.
They were involved at Nördlingen, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_N%C3%B6rdlingen_(1634) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_N%C3%B6rdlingen_(1634)), though.
Hahaha.
Spain fails!
Viking, Delirium, Siege... Who said the Swede was Gustavus Adolphus, or the battle Lützen?
Of course, I said 1634 because he was Gustav Horn (with Bernhard of Saxe-Weimar) and the battle, Nördlingen.
Now you have sprung the trap before S. entered...
Quote from: Berkut on May 07, 2009, 07:21:15 PM
What I don't get is the completely one-sided portrayal you insist on casting this issue in - the Islamists are all uniformly earnest moderate democrats being cruely threatened by the ogres of the military, who use their concern about eroding Turkeys historical secularism as "fig leaf" for their meddling.
Well the reason I see it as relatively onesided is that on the one side is a successful and relatively competent government that's got a few good achievements and has been committed to democracy. On the other side there's a military threatening coups. If you removed the word 'Islam' from the discussion I don't think anyone on this forum would see it as anything but a one-sided argument.
Of course it is arguable that what this actually reflects is the emergence of a pious Anatolian middle class who are politically self-confident and a shift in power to them from the sort of Istanbul-Ankara elite that's dominated Turkish politics for a long time.
QuoteMaybe the Islamists are using their "moderacy" as a fig leaf to cover their desire to erode Turkey historically secular status. I don't know, but apparently you guys do, so well that you are comfortable casting this conflict in the starkest possible terms.
Where's the evidence of that? The AKP haven't, ultimately, supported a single law that erodes Turkey's historically secular status. Except, of course, the attempt to let women wear the head scarf in government property.
QuoteI am not buying it. Frankly, if *I* was a "hardcore secularist" in Turkey, I would share their concerns - and I notice that the article you quote points out that it is NOT strictly the military upset about this, but many of the largely secular public as well.
I said it was the secularists who support threatened military coups who have issues with EU membership because, to be a member of the EU Turkey has to be a democracy.
I don't think any principle on which a state should be founded on, such as secularism or equality, should have the military and a deep state to guarantee. Democracy comes first because democracy can change.
QuoteExcept, of course, the attempt to let women wear the head scarf in government property.
:ultra:
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 08, 2009, 05:58:44 AM
I said it was the secularists who support threatened military coups who have issues with EU membership because, to be a member of the EU Turkey has to be a democracy.
That makes no sense - Turkey *is* a democracy, and the military coups have historically been used to maintain it as such. And you said they threatened a coup because the President's wife had a head scarf. Which is it? They are supporting coups because of head scarfs, or because joining the EU would make Turkey into a democracy....which it already is, and which the Evil Secularists support?
Quote
I don't think any principle on which a state should be founded on, such as secularism or equality, should have the military and a deep state to guarantee.
Oh? The US used the military to guarantee democracy and equality. Had a big war over it in fact. Does that cheapen the value of it?
Quote
Democracy comes first because democracy can change.
What about when someone is interested in subverting the democratic system in order to remove it?
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 08, 2009, 05:58:44 AM
Where's the evidence of that? The AKP haven't, ultimately, supported a single law that erodes Turkey's historically secular status. Except, of course, the attempt to let women wear the head scarf in government property.
So this is all just a completely fake issue, made up out of whole cloth by the hardcore secularists...who actually apparently do not at all care about secularism.
So why call them "hardcore secularists", if in fact they don't care about that issue, and that issue is not even threatened by the "moderate" Islamists?
I love the choices of language here. "Hardcore" secularists. "Moderate" Islamists. When youa re apparently arguing that the issues involved actually have *nothing* to do with Islamism or secularism.
Quote from: Alatriste on May 08, 2009, 01:23:15 AM
Quite frankly, is astonishing that Americans of all people are willing to extend such a free pass to Holocaust deniers.
:lmfao:
Oh yeah, us Americans and our holocaust Denial. Such a problem over here.
I am always surprised at the Europeans and their desire to give a free pass to the Islamists and their jew killing. Oh wait, no I am not.
See what I did there?
Note to the dense:
I am NOT saying that Jews give Muslinms a pass because they like to kill jews. Just mocking Alastartes idiotic linking of Americans to holocaust denial because apparently one of us is a little skeptical of the emotional and one-sided portrayal of the issues involved in Turkey.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 08, 2009, 05:58:44 AM
QuoteMaybe the Islamists are using their "moderacy" as a fig leaf to cover their desire to erode Turkey historically secular status. I don't know, but apparently you guys do, so well that you are comfortable casting this conflict in the starkest possible terms.
Where's the evidence of that? The AKP haven't, ultimately, supported a single law that erodes Turkey's historically secular status. Except, of course, the attempt to let women wear the head scarf in government property.
A quick perusal of wiki says that you are wrong, and they have proposed laws estrablishing prayer in school, banning the sale of alcohol and pornography, and of course the headscarf issue, which is rather obviously more symbolic than a simple irrational attempt by the "hardcore secularists" to persecute them.
Now, perhaps wiki is full of shit - it wouldn't be the first time. I claim no expertise on these issues at all, and do NOT claim that the secualrists are even "right" per se. I would claim that the issue is almsot certainly more nuanced than you insist on portraying it, and if in fact I was someone who supported the continuation of democracy, freedom of religion, and the fundamentals of the secular state in Turkey, I would find the rise of populist religious parties very concerning.
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2009, 08:46:49 AM
:lmfao:
Oh yeah, us Americans and our holocaust Denial. Such a problem over here.
Yeah, I was wondering if he accidentally inserted the wrong nationality.
Is the denial of the Armenian genocide limited only to the Evil Nazi Hardcore Secularist Fascists?
Or is it more general? I always thought it was more general, and based on the argument that while lots of Armenians were killed, there lacked the intent necessary for it to be genocide. I was not aware that theis was a strictly "secular" position.
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2009, 10:54:50 AM
Is the denial of the Armenian genocide limited only to the Evil Nazi Hardcore Secularist Fascists?
Or is it more general? I always thought it was more general, and based on the argument that while lots of Armenians were killed, there lacked the intent necessary for it to be genocide. I was not aware that theis was a strictly "secular" position.
it's a turk thing™
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on May 08, 2009, 11:29:13 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2009, 10:54:50 AM
Is the denial of the Armenian genocide limited only to the Evil Nazi Hardcore Secularist Fascists?
Or is it more general? I always thought it was more general, and based on the argument that while lots of Armenians were killed, there lacked the intent necessary for it to be genocide. I was not aware that theis was a strictly "secular" position.
it's a turk thing™
I thought so.
I am surprised that the Europeans, of all people, would give the Turks a free pass on the genocide denial thing! :P
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2009, 11:30:17 AM
I thought so.
I am surprised that the Europeans, of all people, would give the Turks a free pass on the genocide denial thing! :P
Who today speaks of the Herero?
Quote from: Faeelin on May 08, 2009, 11:31:38 AM
Who today speaks of the Herero?
Dang what is it with Germans and committing Genocide?
Quote from: Viking on May 07, 2009, 08:31:22 AM
300,000, not 400,000, less than Luxembourg. Plus Iceland is willing to bargain it's vote on all EU bodies for fishing rights.
I was under the impression that the Iberians had already fished the oceans empty.
That's one thing about Iceland joining the EU: Their fishing industry would be out of business.
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2009, 11:30:17 AM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on May 08, 2009, 11:29:13 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2009, 10:54:50 AM
Is the denial of the Armenian genocide limited only to the Evil Nazi Hardcore Secularist Fascists?
Or is it more general? I always thought it was more general, and based on the argument that while lots of Armenians were killed, there lacked the intent necessary for it to be genocide. I was not aware that theis was a strictly "secular" position.
it's a turk thing™
I thought so.
I am surprised that the Europeans, of all people, would give the Turks a free pass on the genocide denial thing! :P
if it comes to accession into the EU... the armenian genocide-thing is very likely to be one of the reasons to keep them out (assumigg the turks haven't changed their ways by then).
It doesn't seem likely that they will - conceding on the Armenian genocide is probably domestically impossible to do for any politician.
I find the entire thing bullshit, to be compeltely honest. Historians seem to be pretty established on the issue, but it is mostly just an emotive political bludgeon at this point - a semantic argument over what constitutes "genocide" that has no real bearing on anything in today's world.
Turks do not deny it because they still hate Armenians (although they might, I honestly have no idea), but because it is in their national self image to do so - it seems like it has become a matter of pride or nationalism or some such nonsense. It is largely empty posturing, and the insistence that they engage in some form of forced self-flagellation over it strikes me as bizarre, and as irrelevant and arbitrary as their denial.
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2009, 11:43:29 AM
it seems like it has become a matter of pride or nationalism or some such nonsense. It is largely empty posturing,
it is so empty that Hrant Dink was murdered over it and that numerous people have been brought to trial for socalled insults to turkishness.
It's not as empty a feeling as you'd want it I'm afraid.
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2009, 08:42:34 AM
Oh? The US used the military to guarantee democracy and equality. Had a big war over it in fact. Does that cheapen the value of it?
I wasn't aware of the American history of military coups.
QuoteWhat about when someone is interested in subverting the democratic system in order to remove it?
But where is the evidence of the AKP subverting the democratic system. I can't think of a single thing that's subverted democracy. Whereas threatening a coup is clearly a subversion of it.
QuoteI love the choices of language here. "Hardcore" secularists. "Moderate" Islamists. When youa re apparently arguing that the issues involved actually have *nothing* to do with Islamism or secularism.
I think hard-core secularists are people who want to suspend democracy and all that goes with it, including EU membership, in the name of preserving a particularly strong version of secularism. I think moderate Islamists are those who enact laws that protect human rights and operate within a democratic system.
QuoteA quick perusal of wiki says that you are wrong, and they have proposed laws estrablishing prayer in school, banning the sale of alcohol and pornography, and of course the headscarf issue, which is rather obviously more symbolic than a simple irrational attempt by the "hardcore secularists" to persecute them.
First of all I have no issue with alcohol free zones - they didn't try to ban the sale of alcohol they tried to ban it in one part of Ankara. But they backed off that idea.
According to the same wiki article as I think you read an AKP MP tried to ban the sale of pornography to people aged under 16 and make people log the purchase for people older than that. I disagree with the latter half of that bill, but in the UK we have age restrictions on porn. I think it's entirely sensible.
I don't have an issue with prayer in schools (every school I went to had prayers) but I can see the offence in a secular state and the adultery issue was wrong, and withdrawn after members of the AKP, the opposition and the EU.
But what's more important, surely, is that the AKP government made Turkey's non-constitutional law subject to the European Court of Human Rights, so all of these could have been challenged beyond even the Constitutional Court. They can't make Turkey's constitution subject to European human rights law because that would, of course, remove the restrictions on 'denigrating' the Turkish republic and insulting the military.
I've listed concrete human rights achievements by this party: increased equality for women, reformed anti-terrorist laws which has allowed Kurdish medium education and Kurdish newspapers, establishing the supremacy of the ECHR. On the front of Islam itself, the Turkish government pays for and controls all religious institutions in the country. The AKP government hasn't appointed a conservative cleric yet, their appointments are all considered liberals. They've an impressive economic record. They've done more to achieve EU membership than any previous government. The position of the Kurds has (until recently) improved and relations between Turkey and Armenia are on the road to normalisation.
Recently there's been a loss of momentum and the party's getting slightly more nationalist, which is worrying. There have also been moments when they supported things which were worryingly unsecular (the adultery ban) but on those occassions it was the normal procedures of democracy (foreign concern, internal dissent and the opposition of other parties) that caused the party to switch tack. That's what democracy does and how it works. It doesn't need the military to step in and make threats.
QuoteI would claim that the issue is almsot certainly more nuanced than you insist on portraying it, and if in fact I was someone who supported the continuation of democracy, freedom of religion, and the fundamentals of the secular state in Turkey, I would find the rise of populist religious parties very concerning.
I don't think it is that nuanced. You've got a democratically elected government with a good human rights record, a history of liberalisation and a very strong mandate on the one side and, on the other, the military.
Now the reasons that lead to that confrontation are nuanced. The challenge presented by the emerging, generally pious, Anatolian middle class to the traditional secular elite. I think also the relationship of globalisation is important in that the EU presents a threat to the military's position because the EU requires a full democracy without a deep state but it also challenges a few military taboos: Armenia, Kurdistan and Cyprus, especially. I think it is a challenging and difficult situation when a rather religious (if liberally so, Turkish schools of Islam are generally very tolerant, I mean 20% of the population are Sufi) population would like to see some reflection of those religious values in their secular constitutional framework.
But I think it's the nuance that creates the situation that makes the provocations seem so small. When you're dealing with a number of things like what I've just mentioned then a first lady in a headscarf is suddenly a lot more meaningful and threatening, so too is a reference to 'Mr' Occalan.
QuoteOr is it more general? I always thought it was more general, and based on the argument that while lots of Armenians were killed, there lacked the intent necessary for it to be genocide. I was not aware that theis was a strictly "secular" position.
It's not strictly secular. Under Turkish law acknowledging that the genocide took place, that it was a genocide or that Turkey had anything to do with it is banned under the constitution, which, historically, the military was charged with protecting.
The AKP government has made progress on this subject - in 2005 Turkey and Armenia allowed the use of each other's airspace for civilian flights for the first time - and normalisation of relations is expected in the next few years. There's no suggestion they'll admit or apologise for the genocide based on their statements. But, of course, it's illegal to say anything otherwise.
The ultra-nationalists in Turkey (the Grey Wolves sympathisers and so on) are, of course, almost always opposed to EU membership.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on May 08, 2009, 11:49:12 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2009, 11:43:29 AM
it seems like it has become a matter of pride or nationalism or some such nonsense. It is largely empty posturing,
it is so empty that Hrant Dink was murdered over it and that numerous people have been brought to trial for socalled insults to turkishness.
It's not as empty a feeling as you'd want it I'm afraid.
And the Euroes have brought people up on charges over it as well.
It is empty posturing to the extent that I do not have any reason to believe that them being browbeat into acknowledging it will make any difference to any of their policies or how they run things, especially since it will only be as a result of pressure, rather than any honest adjustment of their perceptions of their own history.
The fact that people are stupid enough to kill over perceived insults to their ideology/world view is hardly unique to Turkey.
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2009, 11:53:00 AM
The fact that people are stupid enough to kill over perceived insults to their ideology/world view is hardly unique to Turkey.
True although in Crazy's world, such is unique to people in the middle east (which extends over turkey) and/or muslims.
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2009, 11:43:29 AM
It doesn't seem likely that they will - conceding on the Armenian genocide is probably domestically impossible to do for any politician.
It is impossible. They would be prosecuted for insulting the Turkish republic.
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2009, 11:43:29 AM
It is largely empty posturing, and the insistence that they engage in some form of forced self-flagellation over it strikes me as bizarre, and as irrelevant and arbitrary as their denial.
It's what people do. See: Japan and their warcrimes.
Shelf, you are playing at moving targets.
You said there was not a single law or policy that was an attempt to roll back secularism. When I pointed out several examples, your response is that you *support* that roll back of secualrism, therefore it isn't an example anymore?
I like how you define away nuance by again, casting it in the harshest possible light. It is the moderate, liberal middle class literally against "the military", which of course has NO popular support except amongst the "secular elite". Right? Is that really the case - the military stands alone, and the people, the masses all universally support the AKP...right?
I think you know just enough about this to be good at showing only one side of the argument - the side that you support. I wonder why you are so biased on this issue. Why are you arguing so strenuously that it MUST be the case that only political party in a conflict in a democratic state can possibly have the monopoly on what is democratic? Is this strictly based on the EU thing? The nazi Secularists don't want to be in the EU, so of course they must be evil?
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 08, 2009, 11:56:18 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2009, 11:43:29 AM
It doesn't seem likely that they will - conceding on the Armenian genocide is probably domestically impossible to do for any politician.
It is impossible. They would be prosecuted for insulting the Turkish republic.
Crazy AKP loons.
Shelf, would you say the wiki description of the AKP as "Religious Conservative, economically liberal" is wrong?
They sound kind of like Republicans!
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2009, 12:02:21 PM
You said there was not a single law or policy that was an attempt to roll back secularism. When I pointed out several examples, your response is that you *support* that roll back of secualrism, therefore it isn't an example anymore?
None of those laws have passed, I don't think any even reached the Parliamentary stage. I said that there were only two that I think challenged secularism: adultery and school prayer.
QuoteI like how you define away nuance by again, casting it in the harshest possible light. It is the moderate, liberal middle class literally against "the military", which of course has NO popular support except amongst the "secular elite". Right? Is that really the case - the military stands alone, and the people, the masses all universally support the AKP...right?
I take your point, the way I've heard it described is that the AKP generally have the support of the poor in major cities and the rising Anatolian middle class while the secularists have the support of the elite - the professional classes, the military and the upper-middle class of Ankara and Istanbul.
I've never said the military has no popular support, but unless they're running in an election that doesn't matter. As it happens the military's the most trusted institution in Turkey but that figures declined a lot of the last few years because most people are sick of them interfering in politics.
QuoteI think you know just enough about this to be good at showing only one side of the argument - the side that you support. I wonder why you are so biased on this issue. Why are you arguing so strenuously that it MUST be the case that only political party in a conflict in a democratic state can possibly have the monopoly on what is democratic? Is this strictly based on the EU thing? The nazi Secularists don't want to be in the EU, so of course they must be evil?
Well I want the AKP to succeed. I look forward to them being voted out but I like and support the emergence of a democratic, Islamist government that has entrenched human rights law, that wants to become more Western and that has no problem with democracy. I think that's a positive thing.
I am generally a democratic absolutist. I think that that is the core that matters in a state not secularism, equality or anything like that and that if there's a clash between one of those values and the functioning of democracy democracy should always come first. I also dislike the military overthrowing democratic governments - I think coups are like torture; they poison the bloodstream of a society and cause negative after-effects for a long time.
The secularists were the ones who started the process of EU membership, though AKP has made larger steps towards that goal. I don't have an issue with secularists, I have an issue with hard-core secularists which I think are those who would support a military coup, those in the military who would organise it and those for whom secularism takes precedence over democracy. I have a fundamental philosophical disagreement with their entire outlook. And I think they're the problem in terms of EU membership, not the Islamists.
Having said all I've said if I were Turkish I'd be a CHP voter. The AKP are far too conservative for my taste and have quite right-wing economic policies. I'm a liberalish lefty and I'd be most at home with the socialist secularists in the CHP. But I don't think the AKP is a threat to democracy or secular values, even if it were a threat to secular values I don't think that would justify the suspension of democracy.
And it's not to do with the EU. I only recently began to think that Turkey should be allowed to join at all and I still have a lot of issues with the idea.
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2009, 12:06:22 PM
Shelf, would you say the wiki description of the AKP as "Religious Conservative, economically liberal" is wrong?
They sound kind of like Republicans!
That's about right. They model themselves on Christian Democrats and I think they are effectively a Muslim Democratic party.
Edit: Which is what I mean by moderate Islamist.
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2009, 12:04:15 PM
Crazy AKP loons.
:lol: Until they reformed that part of the constitution it was illegal to insult 'Turkishness'.
If I were a Turk, I would emigrate to Germany.
But anyway, I think the problem here is that you are looking at the issue from a privileged position - in your world, you can say that democracy reigns supreme over all. But they aren't in your world - they are in a world where theocracies rule all, when in fact the clerics are given any power. You can blithely demand perfect democracy and say that it is more important than trivial things like freedom of religion, but I would say that without those freedoms, any "democracy" is a farce, just mob rule and mob intolerance.
You support a moderate, democratic, Islamist government. Bully for you - what is wrong with a moderate, democratic, secular government? And given the rather profound lack of democratic Islamist governments, and the rather large number of successful secular democratic governments, and the overwhelming number of non-democratic Islamic theocracies coupled with the demand of the religion that the church IS the state...and I can understand their skepticism towards the assumed good faith of the "moderate" Islamists, and even if we presume their good faith, whether it would last once they got into power and the stranglehold on secularism in its own right was broken.
You cannot have a democracy where the rights of the minority are not guaranteed, at least not a democracy in the Western sense. And I have zero faith that any Islamist government would remain moderate for very long. Perhaps it can happen - perhaps even, it MUST happen. But if I were a Turk, I would just as soon let some other country engage in that little experiment.
Would anyone even be considering Turkey in the EU if the "hardcore secularists" had failed in establishing their secular state in the ashes of the Ottoman empire to begin with? I rather doubt it.
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2009, 12:32:42 PM
I would say that without those freedoms, any "democracy" is a farce, just mob rule and mob intolerance.
I thought that was a very interesting part of his post. If a democracy doesn't grant any of those freedoms/rights, what good is the democracy? I think democracy is the means to an ends not and ends in itself.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 08, 2009, 12:22:35 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2009, 12:06:22 PM
Shelf, would you say the wiki description of the AKP as "Religious Conservative, economically liberal" is wrong?
They sound kind of like Republicans!
That's about right. They model themselves on Christian Democrats and I think they are effectively a Muslim Democratic party.
Edit: Which is what I mean by moderate Islamist.
So in fact they are a religious party. But you claim they are a religious party without any religious agenda. How does that make any sense, especially given the several examples proving that your contention that they have done nothing to attempt to roll back secularism in any way was wrong?
You cannot be a religious party if you don't have a religious agenda, unless it is just empty words.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 08, 2009, 12:23:24 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2009, 12:04:15 PM
Crazy AKP loons.
:lol: Until they reformed that part of the constitution it was illegal to insult 'Turkishness'.
how handy that you cn claim that the law is all that is stopping them from acknowledging the Armenian genocide. I am sure they would all love to if only it would not get them arrested.
Quote from: garbon on May 08, 2009, 12:34:27 PM
I thought that was a very interesting part of his post. If a democracy doesn't grant any of those freedoms/rights, what good is the democracy? I think democracy is the means to an ends not and ends in itself.
I'll reply to the rest later. The point is, with democracy, that if a government takes a right away it can be voted out. It's a permanently evolving beast, that's its success and the importance of it.
Berk, I think you're being very irrational because it's to do with Muslims.
I think it is irrational to ignore the fact that we are talking about Islam, and the actions of the Turk secularists are in the context of the Muslim world, not the Western World.
Well, maybe naive is the better word.
QuoteI'll reply to the rest later. The point is, with democracy, that if a government takes a right away it can be voted out. It's a permanently evolving beast, that's its success and the importance of it.
What if the right they take away is the right to vote it out?
What if 45% of the population votes for the party that promises to remove their rights?
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2009, 01:29:12 PM
I think it is irrational to ignore the fact that we are talking about Islam, and the actions of the Turk secularists are in the context of the Muslim world, not the Western World.
Well, maybe naive is the better word.
Ok, so why should the EU accept Turkey's entry ever?
Do you think that Islam and democracy are compatible?
QuoteWhat if the right they take away is the right to vote it out?
What if 45% of the population votes for the party that promises to remove their rights?
Then they're a threat to democracy and constitutional means should be used to prevent them from carrying that promise out. Whether that's a popular front alliance of the rest of the parties in a PR system, a higher court ruling or the Monarch refusing to give assent to the government.
I went on a tangent there though. Democracy is made up of rights (the right to vote, to free speech and to free association). I think many other rights are negotiable and defined by the society they're in and by certain political values like secularism. If the choice is do you protect democracy or certain values then I think the choice should be democracy every time. Though I don't think that accurately reflects the situation in Turkey.
So the idea that the government should not be run by religious fanatics is a "political value"?
Uhhh, ok then.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 08, 2009, 02:21:17 PM
Ok, so why should the EU accept Turkey's entry ever?
Not for me to decide, is it? It depends on what the EU wants.
Quote
Do you think that Islam and democracy are compatible?
Sure.
I don't think that democracy and specifically religious parties that run the government are compatible though, by definition. Religion is not about voting.
Of course democracy and Islam is compatible though - there are lots of Muslims in democratic countries, after all.
Why you would support Turkey becoming LESS democratic by rolling back the guarantees of secularism in favor of religious political parties is rather beyond me. If you support more liberal rights in Turkey, then support them - it's not like only religious parties can possibly be liberal.
In the long run, I would place my bets on the secular party protecting the rights of the minority over the Islamic party.
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2009, 02:23:29 PM
So the idea that the government should not be run by religious fanatics is a "political value"?
Where's the fanaticism?
I've listed, several times, the things they've done. The objectionable things - of which I think two are genuinely objectionable - they were beaten through democratic procedures. The thing that prompted the coup was indeed that a prospective first lady wants to wear a headscarf.
Seriously if this is fanatical Islamism then I can live with it and would indeed be happy if it swept the Middle East. It'd be great if teetering kleptocracy after obscene monarchy collapsed and everyone got democracy, the European Convention on Human Rights and a commitment to integrate into the West.
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2009, 02:28:04 PM
I don't think that democracy and specifically religious parties that run the government are compatible though, by definition. Religion is not about voting.
They're in Europe, we have a healthy tradition of Christian Democracy here. As you said earlier, they sound like Republicans. I may not support them but if that's the shape Islamism takes then I'm fine with it.
QuoteWhy you would support Turkey becoming LESS democratic by rolling back the guarantees of secularism in favor of religious political parties is rather beyond me. If you support more liberal rights in Turkey, then support them - it's not like only religious parties can possibly be liberal.
I do. Above all I support the right of the people to choose their government - and a good government it's been - not the generals or the courts.
QuoteIn the long run, I would place my bets on the secular party protecting the rights of the minority over the Islamic party.
Well, so far the secularists have killed 30 000 Kurds.
Also what do you mean by minority? Turkish Islam is very diverse. Indeed I believe the President and his wife belong to different interpretations.
I think you are just being intentionally difficult.
The "fanatacism" is everywhere there is a islamic religious "party" group running a government. You started out claiming they have never done *anything* to roll back secualrism, then I point out multiple exampels and your response is
1) Lots of those things you support. Good for you, but that doesn't matter - they are still examples.
2) Some of the things you don't support failed. Well, yeah they failed, that is because not everyone in Turkey is as keen on the rule of clerics as some in the AKP would like. Why would you assume that if they get more power, less and less will fail, and more and more will succeed?
your claim rests on the presumption that there is no desire to impose religious law in any way - which is clearly false given the very nature of the party (it is a religious party) and their track record so far. Clearly they DO wish to oll back secularism and impose more Muslim law. perhaps if that never goes very far, it would be ok - even preferable to the current system.
But those who are worried are worried because they don't think it will stop there, and they have ample reason TO worry, given that every single successful western democracy is not run by a religious or Islamic party, and every single country run by clerics and people who think the Koran is a great source for legal principles is a relative disaster.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 08, 2009, 02:32:38 PM
Well, so far the secularists have killed 30 000 Kurds.
Right. So the AKP is running on a platform that they will allow the Kurds to separate then?
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2009, 02:35:29 PMThe "fanatacism" is everywhere there is a islamic religious "party" group running a government. You started out claiming they have never done *anything* to roll back secualrism, then I point out multiple exampels and your response is
Your multiple examples included not allowing the sale of alcohol in a certain neighbourhood and banning the sale of pornography to under 16s. I don't think that is fanatical or a roll back of secularism.
Quote1) Lots of those things you support. Good for you, but that doesn't matter - they are still examples.
You've said this before and my response was that I don't accept that most of them attack secularism. Though I think you're right, that two things do (adultery and school prayer) and noted that they never even got to the stage of having a bill prepared.
Quote2) Some of the things you don't support failed. Well, yeah they failed, that is because not everyone in Turkey is as keen on the rule of clerics as some in the AKP would like. Why would you assume that if they get more power, less and less will fail, and more and more will succeed?
Well they've got a lot of power. I don't want them to have more power, I want the military to not overthrow them.
Also the leap to AKP wants the rule of clerics is utterly preposterous and completely unfounded. I can think of one example when they've said anything that could ever be interpreted in that way. But then I don't think Christian Democrats (the AKP's declared model) wants a rule of clerics, I don't think the Republicans do either.
Quoteyour claim rests on the presumption that there is no desire to impose religious law in any way - which is clearly false given the very nature of the party (it is a religious party) and their track record so far. Clearly they DO wish to oll back secularism and impose more Muslim law. perhaps if that never goes very far, it would be ok - even preferable to the current system.
I think their track record is one that emphasises western principles, human rights, a respect for democracy and a desire to integrate into the EU. And it seems like you've completely ignored that.
QuoteRight. So the AKP is running on a platform that they will allow the Kurds to separate then?
No, but the AKP has allowed education in the Kurdish language as well as legalised media in Kurdish, there is also now Kurdish representation in Parliament. These are small steps but hopefully it'll lead somewhere.
Small steps - outstanding. But they are willing to kill Kurds just teh same, if the Kurds attack, right?
So your little spat over the Evil Secularists apaprently just randomly killing tens of thousands of Kurds for no apparent reason? What was the purpose of that?
QuoteI think their track record is one that emphasises western principles, human rights, a respect for democracy and a desire to integrate into the EU. And it seems like you've completely ignored that.
Not in the least - since I have no real problem with the AKP. The difference between me and you is not that you support the AKP and I support the 'hardcore" secularists, it is that you have this irrational hatred of the secularists, and I am capable of seeing where they are coming from, and why they think the way they do - to the extent that is possible. This is not two sides of a coin - this is you jumping with two feet into the roll of the party hack whose job it is to demonize the opposition as radical crazy fascists, and me not buying that it is so simply a case of Good versus Evil.
I can see why both sides are acting the way they do, and are both operating in manner that the perceive as being on good faith. Why you cannot is rather puzzling to me.
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2009, 12:36:04 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 08, 2009, 12:23:24 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2009, 12:04:15 PM
Crazy AKP loons.
:lol: Until they reformed that part of the constitution it was illegal to insult 'Turkishness'.
how handy that you cn claim that the law is all that is stopping them from acknowledging the Armenian genocide. I am sure they would all love to if only it would not get them arrested.
insulting turkishness is still illegal, only they call it insulting the turkish nation now. It's harder to be prosecuted, but still possible
from wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_301_(Turkish_penal_code)
QuoteFollowing the murder of Hrant Dink, Turkish deputy prime minister and foreign minister Abdullah Gül declared, "With its current state, there are certain problems with article 301. We see now that there are changes which must be made to this law."[27]
On April 30, 2008, article 301 was amended by the Parliament of Turkey, with the following changes:[28]
replacement of the word "Turkishness" with the phrase "Turkish nation" (in the phrase "insulting Turkishness").
reduction of the maximum penalty from three years to two.
requiring permission of the justice minister to file a case. The permission procedure of Article 301 will be carried out by the Directorate General of the Criminal Affairs of the Ministry of Justice where competent judges are seconded to the Ministry. Even if a criminal investigation is launched upon the permission of the Minister of Justice, the prosecutor still has discretionary power to decide not to prosecute. Such a decision was made in the July 2008 case against İbrahim Tığ, the editor of the daily Bölge Haber.[29][30] The governor of Zonguldak filed a complaint citing "open denigration of the government" ("T.C. Hükümetini Alenen Aşağılamak") after Tığ wrote a column accusing the ruling Justice and Development Party of selling the country's assets though privatization.[31] As of July 2008, six of the seven 301 cases that have been considered by the ministry were rejected for prosecution.[29]
According to the Turkish legal system, international conventions on human rights automatically become part of the national legal order without additional transposition once they are adopted by the Parliament. Hence, international human rights instruments to which Turkey is party have to be taken into consideration by judges and prosecutors in dealing with cases in accordance with Article 90 of the Constitution.[citation needed] Therefore, prosecutors are strongly encouraged to directly apply the landmark decisions of the European Court of Human Rights and particularly the Handyside v. UK case.[citation needed] Furthermore, the statement of the suspect cannot be taken before the permission of the Minister of Justice in order not to discredit the suspect in the eyes of the public.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 08, 2009, 02:49:00 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2009, 02:35:29 PMThe "fanatacism" is everywhere there is a islamic religious "party" group running a government. You started out claiming they have never done *anything* to roll back secualrism, then I point out multiple exampels and your response is
Your multiple examples included not allowing the sale of alcohol in a certain neighbourhood
A fine example of rolling back secularism, since that is strictly pushed for as a religious issue.
Quoteand banning the sale of pornography to under 16s. I don't think that is fanatical or a roll back of secularism.
it is certainly a roll back of secularism if it is driven by religious mores. Just because you share those mores is irrelevant.
And you forgot about the national registry for anyone else buying porn. Gosh, that isn't fanatical at all, is it?
i wonder why you left that part out, in your claim that the AKP has not made one single attempt to roll back secularism in any way?
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2009, 03:05:56 PMThis is not two sides of a coin - this is you jumping with two feet into the roll of the party hack whose job it is to demonize the opposition as radical crazy fascists, and me not buying that it is so simply a case of Good versus Evil.
I'm not demonising the opposition or the secularists. I have a lot of time for the CHP's tradition and I prefer their opinions on a number of subjects. I object to the military having a constitutional right to coup. And I disagree with their supporters (the hardcore secularists).
I do actually think overthrowing democratically elected governments is, generally, an issue of right and wrong - which is far more prosaic than Good and Evil. The last two are useful for theologians but no-one else.
QuoteI can see why both sides are acting the way they do, and are both operating in manner that the perceive as being on good faith. Why you cannot is rather puzzling to me.
I can see why both sides are acting as they are that doesn't mean I'm going to treat them equally. One side has shown no attempt at lessening democratic principles or 'rule by clerics'. The other side's explicitly threatened rule by military junta for a few years. I prefer the democrats.
QuoteSo your little spat over the Evil Secularists apaprently just randomly killing tens of thousands of Kurds for no apparent reason? What was the purpose of that?
The conversation was about protected minority rights. The hardcore secularists have killed tens of thousands of Kurds, and a number of those deaths have been random. The military's had associations with nationalist terrorist groups and death squads operating in Kurdistan.
You then went hyperbolic and instead of caring about protecting minority rights said 'So the AKP is running on a platform that they will allow the Kurds to separate then?'
They don't, of course. But they have increased protection of minorities during their 7 years in office, yeah.
Quotei wonder why you left that part out, in your claim that the AKP has not made one single attempt to roll back secularism in any way?
I wasn't aware of it.
QuoteAnd you forgot about the national registry for anyone else buying porn. Gosh, that isn't fanatical at all, is it?
Actually I mentioned it when I addressed these points earlier. I said it was wrong. You still haven't addressed any of the postive points I've mentioned.
QuoteA fine example of rolling back secularism, since that is strictly pushed for as a religious issue.
But then no religion has any place anywhere in politics?
Is Berkut arguing from stereotypes again?
you said there was not a single example of them pushing back secularism. I provided multiple examples of them doing just that, and your response is that they don't count for a variety of reasons, but none of those reasons are that they aren't examples of them trying to roll back secularism.
So your claim that they aren't really a religious party, and hence the idea that they are a threat to the secular status of Turkey is bogus is false. Arguing that they don't count because they are good ideas doesn't address the issue at all.
And no, I do not think there is any place for religious people enshrining their religious beliefs into laws that everyone else must follow. It is that whole "freedom" thing I am a fan of.
Lastly, why would I need to address your positive points? I have made no claim that there were not positive points, so I am perfectly content to let your examples stand. Bully for them that they have made some positive strides on issues.
Why should I believe that those strides cannot be done with the religious bullshit though? Seems like there are lots of examples of perfectly secualr countries that have rights for women and such. The idea that we MUST have religious clerics deciding laws in order to get voting rights for women - and the idea that Islamic religious politicos is the best source for such reform - is rather puzzling.
I am encouraged that it happens - but I don't think I would abandon secular principles to throw my support behind the religious when it comes to securing basic human rights. I would rather find some secular party that can do the same thing without the need to tell me when I can buy booze or look at porn, or wants to keep track of me if I choose to buy a copy of some book they don't like.
I'm leaving for a while but I don't think I've ever denied the AKP party is religious. I've been calling them Islamist for the past two pages.
My argument is simple. The AKP don't represent a threat to democracy. The military and their supporters who do in the name of secularism are wrong. I belive that the Turkish system should be flexible enough to reach American style disinterested secularism (as the US has, and this is the AKP's stated model) rather than an anti-clerical French style laicite. Because of that I don't think the AKP threaten secularism anymore than Republicans do in the US or the CDU do in Germany, therefore there is no justification in threatening a military coup to 'protect' secularism. Entry into the EU threatens the military's legal position to overthrow governments and that's why neither they nor their supporters (the hard-core secularists) are terribly keen, because they're a larger group than anti-EU Islamists I think they represent more of the anti-EU sentiment in Turkey. Though I think larger than both are people who've just been disillusioned at the dicking about by the EU.
I'd add, just before I go, that even if those are examples of pushing back secularism - which I don't think most of them are - then they were all rejected, in many cases before they even got to the floor of the parliament, by normal democratic and parliamentary methods. Why, again, does the army need to have the right to intervene?