@Slartibartfas


Turkey was already in EFTA since 1992, and has been a member of Customs Union for 10 years, if a mere trade union much like EFTA, satisfied them, they would not knock EU’s door that hard. There will be certainly issues which Turkey would consider from its own point of view and react differently, like a stupid cartoon fuss or history lessons taught by the learned pope, his holiness.. But I don’t know if these would necessarily damage political integration, it depends on pro-European attitude that the one expects, as pointed out before if it will not deliberately put one side down, I don’t think it to be a big deal.



I need more clarification, could you be more specific?




Ataturk wanted to see the modernization process achieved in Turkey, whether European, American, Japanese or Martian does not really matter. As to motives, everybody has its own position. Businessman supports it probably for selfish reasons. Political Elites speak of being a member of a club that has the potential of being world power and extending its power and influence to middle east, central asia and Moslem world, as well as a means to provide stability for the region and the country itself .Turkish Army on its parts supports it because it regards it as a safe-harbour to place the ship and to abandon and hand over the father figure it assumed for the protection of Turkish Republic. , as for the ordinary people ( not counting ultra-nationalists, Islamic state dreamers and Kurdish separatists ) a combination of all with a special importance attached to economic and political stability and prevention of corruption.

What are you talking about, unlike Greek Cypriots many of the Turkish Cypriot population has never been removed from there homes because they were never from Cyprus in the first place. They are settlers from Turkey. Over 115,000 Turkish Cypriots in Cyprus are settlers, the total population of the Turkish occupied area of Cyprus is 264,000 people.
The treaty said to interfere if to prevent the division of the island, Turkey invaded and in the end ended up dividing the island and still have the troops on the island. This is not what the treaty says.
Makarios refused all the purposed solutions which would have resulted the partition of Cyprus from the Turkish cypriot minister before the EOKA coup trying to keep the island unified. Turkey may have not signed the treaty but both the Turkish government and Turkish cypriots politicians wanted the island divided right from the get-go and they made it impossible for Greek-Cypriots to run the government of a unified independent Cyprus.

Grow up kid, i feel kind of tired and disappointed that eachtime i have to enlighten or instruct you on something that you sound like never heard before. A large number of Turkish Cypriots had fled to North, and this is not a minor event, if one takes the precentage into account, as natioanlist Greeks try to portray.

And the source ? Greek embassy page ? or Greek cypriot pages quoting this ominously sounding number which they attribute to some unknow politicians?
Or is it coming from the same that said Turkish civilians were not 'attacked' before 1974 ? It ranges between 45 000 to 80 000 according to various estimates, A number equivalent to 1/4 of Turkish Cypriots who has migrated to Turkey. Furthermore if the reason for the rejection of this plan is the number of migrants as you claim then Why did Greek Cypriots reject the earlier attemts of solution, when the number of migrants was far less, to the existing dispute such as Gali set of ideas, put forward by UN secretary Gali to propose a plan as a solution, which Denktas and Turkish cypriots gave supporty ? Like it or not, the Annan plan was not biased, it recived the general approval of international community.

The scope of the treaty includes the protection of constitutional system as well as protection of the communities to which the Makarios the dickhead and his followers had no right to complain against.

Keeep fooling yourself, Makarios was the man who abolished the constitutional system as agreed by the founding treaties therefore the man who disregarded the existing treaties before anyone else. Turkey as a guarantor state wanted to interfere and asked the support of UK in 1960s following the aboliton of Constitutional rights of Turkish Community and the bloody massacres that targeted the Turks in 1961,1963,1964 and 1967 which the foreing journalists reported in detail(would like to see some of them again ?) But Turkey did not so on the faiths to promises given by the USA. Perhaps you might have heard about the ships leaving for Cyprus but later returned as Turkey changed its desicion on faiths to promises given? In the subsequence of 1974 operation, Turkey did not advocated the partition, but insisted on the renewal of the founding treaties with more guarantees and protection accorded to Constitutional System, and to Turkish community as well. For this reason Turkey reminded UK of its obligation and invited her to interfere as a guarantor state since Turkey knew following the operation, the renewal of the system was neccessary. If Turkey had wanted to annex or divide the island permanently, Why did she invite UK, when she clearly had the power to do it alone? And now you complain that she did not bring the old system back to the hands of Makarios and you insist that this is what Turkey should have done. How and why should Turkey trust priest Makarios(who from the beggining abolished the constitution, himself) with a system that failed and doomed to fail again without adequate renewals? I could really care less, what is the use of northern Cyprus for Turkey anyways? It is clearly nothing other than waste of resources, efforts, time and image.

What treaty, that Turkey may not have signed, are you talking about? It is obvious that you like to make a great play of the alleged demands from the Turkish politicians. Turkey advocated the partition of the island in 1950s prior to the signature of the London and Zurich Treaty and abandoned this policy after the signature of these treaties. So quit these cheap tactics.

The first disagreement here involves the description of the problem, Turkish sides claims that the problem started with the abolition of Constitutional system of Cyprus by Greek cypriots and the bloody events that followed it in 1961, 1963, 1967 etc.. The Greek side claims that problem emerged after Turkey intervened in 1974, So the aboliton of Constitution and the outrages to which Turkish community have been subjected counts nothing to Greek side( as seen from your posts as well.) Unless and until there is change in this attitude i see little hope of a solution.

I think that Turkey has to give the nothern Cyprus back to Greeks because it was annexed by turks illegaly. Those lands has always belonged to Greeks.

However almost all territory of Turkey didn't belong to turks but they occupied it during long and bloody wars with Greeks, Armenians, Kurds etc...

However Kurds still don't have the status of national autonomy.

I don't ask turks to give back the land of Turkey to europeans even if the land was grabbed in 15 centuary from europian nations, however before accepting membership i think that Turkey should:

1. to acknowledge the massive and bloody genocide of Armenians in 1915-1920 and give Armenians back their saint mountain - Ararat, that was annexed from Armenia as the compensation for genocide.
2. to give back Cyprus to Greeks.

I think that will be honestly from Turkey's side.

__________________
Please watch this:


Shocking video of results of Georgian attack on South Osetia
CNN is spreading propaganda!
American witness: "Not only Georgia, but also U.S. are responsible for the violence in South Ossetia"
Mark Almond: It's simplistic to cast Russia as sole villain in South Ossetia clashes

Thats sounds very logically. After all you are allready tightly connected economically with Europe.

But I am not getting more sense out of it than before. If the Turks want to join the EU mainly due to political reasons, are they aware that huge problems are approaching on exactly that matter? And without putting any importance on who is right or wrong, issues like Cyprus, the Armenian incident etc have to be resolved to the satisfaction of both sides before one can even think about a working political union. As I have said, I do not try to tell you which side is right, just that without getting those and similar issues cleared, I hardly can see a political union working.

Another example might be the current incident in which Turkey withdrew the invitation of a specific Member of the European Parliament from a larger delegation that is going to visit Turkey soon (or at least planned to do so). This disrespect of EU insitutions is unthinkable as soon as you are member of the EU. Its not in your competence to tell the European Parliament which of its members are allowed to come with a delegation. Alone the respect of this democratic EU institution alone demands it that this is the business of the Parliament only. Turkey has to learn to comply with that if it ever wants to be part of the political process inside of the EU. As it has to learn that the EU tends to intervene into internal issues, if it thinks human rights are infringed significantly.

You furthermore have to accept that the highest court as soon as you enter the club, is not some court in Ankara, but the European Court of Justice in Brussels. That measn if the Court in Brussels judges, thats the end of the discussion. Period.

There are many other points, but these are from the top of my head. In case you think that Turkey will have no or at least not too large problems with the points above, than it is a big step forward, and Turkey might be indeed a good candidate state for the EU. If you see a severe obstacle in one of the points above, we've got a problem.

I said that generally. Every member gets overvoted from time to time. This can happen in any area that falls under European legislation. Thats something Turks have to be aware of and ready to accept. If they are not, that makes not non-Europeans out of them. But will cause quite deep problems in case of a joining.

Fight against corruption might be in fact really a good reason. At least did it work in the new member states in the east. I dont want to claim that corruption has been eliminated there. Not at all, but without the EU we would see corruption of far worse dimensions. An independant third force, beneath the member states that controlls and fights corruption is making a difference.

Anyway, I see it coming what has allready happened in other places before. As soon as you are in, you will become as EU sceptic as many others before. (just look at the Czechs for example) If you are not allready until the possible admission. That will make the functioning of the political Union for sure not easier.

__________________
When the Nazis came for the communists I remained silent, I was no communist.
When the Nazis came for the Unionists I remained silent, I was no Unionist.
When the Nazis came for the Social Democrats I remained silent, I was no Social Democrat.
When the Nazis came for the Jews I remained silent, I was no Jew.
When the Nazis came for me, there was no one left who could protest.

This is off topic, sorry. But, shall you Russians give Karelia back?

Hector, how can you possibly imagine Turkey as part of EU, when all the nations would be doing a lot more than just asking these rather difficult questions about Cyprus and Armenia?

Nope! Of course not! Because Finland acted on the side of Nazi Germany during WW2!

Because of the help of Finland Saint-Petersburg (Leningrad) was blockaded and over 650 thousand men, women and children died of starvation (some sources say that over 800 thousands died in Leningrad)! Karelia is the unimportant and incomplete compensation for these crimes from finnish side...

__________________
Please watch this:


Shocking video of results of Georgian attack on South Osetia
CNN is spreading propaganda!
American witness: "Not only Georgia, but also U.S. are responsible for the violence in South Ossetia"
Mark Almond: It's simplistic to cast Russia as sole villain in South Ossetia clashes

Half-humour passed you like a train, now I'm pissed. They really ought to teach more about that particular time in Russian schools.
You invaded us. Four weeks was it? Until your troops make a parade in Helsinki, or so you thought.
Continuous war began thanks to Hitlers speech where he stated that Finns stand by Germans side. Your bombers were on the way and our diplomats were turned away. You wanted that war just as much as we. We took what was ours and then we pressed on, trying to reach the lakelines. Idea was that lines of defence could be drawn between the great lakes, less ground to fight in.

Now to your statement. Finns refused the German demends to join the siege. Marshal Mannerheim even made sure no cannon could reach St.Petersburg. Lifeline through Laatokka (Lake Ladoga) was left untouched by Finns. Mannerheim had lived in St.Petersburg most of his life and loved that city, he made sure no Finn-hand would be there to destroy it. Other reason was that if things fared badly, Soviets would hopefully remember that Finns did not aid the siege and actually allowed tha supplies in, and thus respect Finns. It worked.
Now, the bottom of your statement is taken away, care to continue?

It neither belonged to any of these, if you consider the Turks merely as colonist, the same applies to all these groups, who were colonists as well but lost it to another one in the course of history. The orginal inhabittants of minor Asia was the Hittites.


Depends actually on the nation description actually, for me speaking 7 languages, plus having differing dialects, is not the typical of a nation. If the Kurds for this reason deserve an independence as "biggest nation without independence", so does the Uyghur in China, Tatar, Chuvash, Karakalpak, etc. in Russia as a bigger nation without independence.The reality is out of 180 cities in russia , 80 of them have Turkic majority .

Rhetoric aside, if the Kurds in Turkey want it, they should be independent and take the areas i mentioned before. That's my solution.

lol Grabbed from europeans in the 15th century ? Do you know another Turkey than we do ? Because the one i know has no relevance at all to what you claim. accepting membership ? you mean before being admitted perhaps ? Did the Russians start making demands for EU ?

Ok my smart friend, what justification do you have for these suggestions? Russian parliement desicion ? or other parliements? Read back idiot, i have already adressed to these nonsense arguments. or if you want, i can just copy-paste. Dont waste my time.

I found the information above rich, considering that it comes from a Russian. If your arguments are consistent, you should first tackle the issues of the massive murder of Turks and other muslims in Balkans, Caucasia, Crimea etc. by the Russians. Go clean the house first, as i know you simply look the other way in these cases.

Neither i do get any sense anymore. It was a UN report that declared Cyprus' membership as illegal that didnt mean much to EU. What Turkey could have done to solve Cyprus problem other than accepting the proposed UN solution is beyond me. For the Current dispute between Turkey and EU over Cyprus, again i fail to see fault of Turkey other than insisting on a promise that was given by EU :


Turkey and Europe — two trains on a collision course?
By Joschka Fischer

.....

The key dispute is over Cyprus. Turkey has refused to open its ports, airports and roads to the Republic of Cyprus, as it is obligated to do by the Ankara Protocol, which set the terms of Turkey’s accession negotiations. Turkey explains its refusal by the EU’s failure (as a result of a veto by the Greek Cypriot government in Nicosia) to fulfil its own promise to open up trade with Northern Cyprus, which is under Turkish rule. The EU made these promises at the Council of Europe in December 2003 and formally at the Council of Foreign Ministers in April 2004. But so far it has not fulfilled them. So it is Ankara — and not the EU! — that has a legitimate point here.

www.jordantimes.com/fri/opinion/opinion4.htm




Turkiye as Russia's Ally?
Last update: 07-29-2006
Submitted by Charles Grant - www.guardian.co.uk

....
Russia is preparing to offer a sympathetic shoulder to a Turkey spurned by the EU...

If the EU is not careful, it could drive Turkey into Russia's arms. And if that pair teamed up with Iran - with which both have good relations - the EU would face a powerful and potentially hostile trio: two major producers of oil and gas, plus Turkey, which carries crucial pipelines to Europe.

Anti-EU sentiment is growing in Russia and Turkey. While the EU is hardly to blame for the growth of Russian authoritarianism and nationalism under Putin, its inability to deal fairly with the Cyprus issue is fuelling anti-western feeling in Turkey. If the EU fails to tackle the problem, Joschka Fischer's troubling scenario could come to pass.

http://turkdiaspora.org/index.php?m=show&id=33
Returnig to the Armenian issue, i fail to see how it is a problem for the proper working of a political union. Is Armenia a member of union ? What legal justification is there for EU to impose it upon Turkey? A solution does not mean something being imposed by EU. If the Armenian case, is a problem for the political integration, then Why not that of Algerian experience with French, The sterilization of Lapps in advanced European countries, cleansing of Muslims from Armenia? Turks from Balkans (of which 2 countries are members namely Bulgaria(not currently but soon) and Greece)?

An army unit watches Moslems get massacred by Serbs, it is just misguided Dutch commanders of the unit, lets punish the scapegoats. Croats were committing atrocities with German support and arms, never mind. Greeks were supporting Serbs with arms and finances, forget about it.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/milos...868869,00.html

I am not the authority to decide what constitutes Genocide or not, So is not the idiots at the European Parliement, which includes persons that can be termed racist or Turkophobe. The article 6 of UN Genocide convention clearly states only the authorized court can make such a desicion.It would have been the fair-mindedness of Europeans, had they supported Turkey's proposal of a joint commission, instead of coming forward as "Holly Inquisition" to lecture and impose their unjustified solution.

Furthermore you talk about the political union not working in case of Turkey, Yet it was Greece back in the recent years, who threanted to blockade whole enlargement in case EU does not include Cyprus. Now if you are going to limit yourself again to saying you are against this blackmail policy, please dont bother.


I see that you wait to respond till this occurence. Actually well done to Turkey.A rather good development imo. I am not in any way supportive of EU since the day in 2002 they started membership talks with Bulgaria and Romania whose people migrate in numbers to Turkey in the hope of a better life. The case in point here is involvement of Matzakis,a crazy nationalist Greek cypriot in that delegation,I dont see it is EU-Turkey clash but rather a reaction to this provocative nationalist thug. In any case Turkey could have showed the maturity of overlooking this guy but as i said currently there is no strong support for EU. There is an accumulated and growing distrust towards EU.


As i said Turkey could have overlooked it, this is something related to current decline in support for EU and a reaction to its presemptious attitude in the recent.The upcoming elections has also a great effect on it. If you want consider this irrelevant, because subsequent, event to be a proof of your view Turkey is not compitable with the rest, well do it. I already told you there is no popular support, there is no need to re-discover America. And the fact of the matter is EU has the major responsiblity for this growing distrust. At least i know of no country that has been criticized because its alphabet lacked the specific letters "q,w,x" that is what the EU exactly criticized Turkey for.

The EU did never expect that they would seriously have to consider Turkey's memebership. What did EU do to help or say encourage Turkey for integration? Why did they give empty-promises and made Turkey responsible for it? EU (if we avoid word games EU bears responsiblity for EEC,EC agreements ) gave the right of "free movement"( sounds terrible isnt it?) to Turkish nationals, by Additional Protocol signed in 1970s, however in 1985 a year prior to putting into practice it cancelled it. When Greece became a member of union/community they promised that She will not in any way take negative position in EU-Turkish relations, Now i dont know whether to cry or laugh at this. When Turkey joined Customs Union they promised to give about 3 billion dolars in the view of economic difficulties that Turkey would face, however making Greek veto(remember the 2nd promise) an excuse they refused to give what they promised. Yes it is not in our competence to tell European Parliement what to do. For years they have supported PKK on the one hand and lectured on human rights on the other one, while recognizing PKK as terrorist only after 9/11 under American pressure and followed many other similar nasty policies. That these all because Turkey's human rights records, i do not for one moment believe.

I would not see a problem with it, had i still supported EU membership for Turkey. But currently i am rather sceptical of EU's motives. Likewise the public in Turkey started to question whether facing this racist, arrogant attitude really worths. This is a rather good sign.

I have got a problem with the way EU handles Turkish membership efforts. It seems it is not just me :

"What we wanted was Turkey's membership negotiations presented without any conditions attached. But Turkey did not overly resist. If it were us, we wouldn't have accepted such a conditional membership.”
(ex) Swedish Prime Minister Goran Persson,
http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/a...p?enewsid=2256

Here is another one by Cohn-Bendit contrasting the Bulgarian, Romanian case and the Turkish one and naming EU officials hpyocrite.

http://www.24heures.ch/vqhome/archiv...dition=ls.html



If it is a case that happens every member it is quite fine. However I see you kind of fail to see the sources of objections against EU and keep having the impression that the Turks are an immature school kids that cant take criticism that ought to be taught how to behave by EU. Let me put it more frankly: show me a conflict in which EU thinks Turkey might be right( i emphasize might ). There is none. It's a matter of sensitivity, what registers on my radar mght not register on yours because your looking glass is different. Take the war on iraq for example: Turkey was criticized by EU even though she did not enter the war, what is more EU members entered the war and were left uncriticized. For instance, the EU parliament claimed DEP Kurdish political prisoners are treated like animals in prisons, yet these same 'parliamentarians' say visited Leyla Zana in her prison cell with tea garden attached to it, a fridge, a tv and all ammenities. They complain that Abdullah Ocalan is being mistreated, yet they have no complaint to make when they visit him and see what is being provided to him. So that leaves me to wonder-what's going on?

Last year a university president has been unjustly imprisoned, prosecuted and has been the subject of degenarting attitudes which outraged the public. Yet there was not a single word from EU. Only through many accusations and after a question from a journalist, they commented, limiting themselves to saying that they follow the developments. Now contrast this to the fuss with the case of Pamuk and bombardment of the court by EU mps. If you still fail to see impression this contrast creates on the public with relation to EU, i have nothing more to say.

http://www.meforum.org/article/1025

Some marginal ultra nationalist-fundamentalist fanatics even started to suggest a blind revenge policy and advocate that we should do what europeans have done for years,take up a hostile attitude, support, arm, fundamentalist terrorists against EU, turn their life into hell and dismiss any legal objections to this policy and conceal the evil-nature of this support by putting it down to the fact that EU countries has mistreated muslims and occupied their countries, created the 3rd world by portraying it in an exaggerated fashion. But such a thing will never happen, at least not before France becomes an islamic republic to give an extreme example , thanks to the fact that fanatics of secularism outnumber that of religion by far.

It might have been but not anymore. When i started this thread anti-EU sentiment was not that high. I was in USA during the summer, when i got back i found the things quite different than i left. My prediction was that this EU-story woud find an end in the next decade, but now it seems but too probable after next elections.

A membership is unlikely to happen to no need to speculate on it . I am already an EU-sceptic.

I dont expect Turkey to become a member, moreover i dont wish it for the last 4 years. I have answered those questions many times, it is not the questions that those in europe are interested but an opportunity to blockade Turkish membership.

Ha-ha-ha.... You wrote the total bs.... Number of tatars is 5.7 mln, number of migrants from Azerbaibjan is 2 mln. The reality is that they have majority in only one big city (Kazan). And the tatarian is one of official languages in Russia.

And Tatar, Chuvash have national states, autonomies and rights instead of Turkey which is afraid to give its national minorities national states (autonomies) and official status of culture and language.


No. We don't need UE and we don't even plan to enter it.

]

You have showed your intelligence a lot. Any arguments? Armenian genocide is widely lighten up.

Turks have occupied this countries...

Balkans, Caucasia, Crimea, Greece, Armenia ... ok, you are right, but those lands were occupied by turks during wars and bloody agression on the citizens and no wonder that people wanted to clean up from agressors...

You will enter EU at 2015-2025.....

__________________
Please watch this:


Shocking video of results of Georgian attack on South Osetia
CNN is spreading propaganda!
American witness: "Not only Georgia, but also U.S. are responsible for the violence in South Ossetia"
Mark Almond: It's simplistic to cast Russia as sole villain in South Ossetia clashes