Top Diaries

I still don't know what your requirements for EU membership are. A mostly white population? Mostly Christian? Would you exclude the Muslim ex-Eastern bloc countries as well? I hear the arguments against Turkey and all I hear is "keep the Muslim darkies out".

I don't give a fuck which ridiculous myth the Turks say they believe in. To say Islam has no relationship to the West - whoever that is these days - is nonsense. Remind me how much of France's, Germany's and Britain's populations are Muslim?

Sure, the influence of the military is worrying, but declining. We're not talking about them joining tomorrow. We're talking about them joining in ten or fifteen years.

For example, is it even possible to think of open borders with Turkey?

I'm not sure what that means.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Jul 5th, 2005 at 03:21:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

To say Islam has no relationship to the West - whoever that is these days - is nonsense.

Indeed. Islam and Muslims have played a very large part in the history of the West. It was Muslim governments which ruled all or part of Spain for 781 years. It was the Muslim residents of Spain, and the xenophobia of the Spanish royalty which brought about the Spanish Inquisition. It was a Muslim Ottoman army which sieged Vienna in 1529 and 1683, and almost caused the collapse of Christian rule in Europe.

When Columbus left Spain (seems to pop up a lot) in 1492, he was after two things:

Gold and natural resources to steal.
The supposed subjegation of the Muslim Indian "threat" to Spain.

The only way Columbus could have gotten funding is by making Isabella and Ferdinand believe that Muslims were going to attack, seeing as Granada had just fallen.

So the notion that Muslims have had no bearing on Western history is ridiculous.

by DH from MD on Tue Jul 5th, 2005 at 08:02:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It was a Muslim Ottoman army which sieged Vienna in 1529 and 1683, and almost caused the collapse of Christian rule in Europe.

Well actually, the Ottomans didn't exactly convert everyone at the force of swords to Islam in the areas they conquered, unlike, say, the Spaniards. Beyond the close proximity of Istambul, only in parts of Bosnia and most of the Albanian areas was there a majority switch to Islam.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Tue Jul 5th, 2005 at 09:48:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I didn't mean it like that (none / 0)

I meant that at the time, it was the Church that ruled Europe. If the Ottomans had been able to go any farther, the Church's power would have crumbled because of it's inability to prevent the invasion by the "infidels" (or so I've heard).

I'm not very good at explaining what I mean the first time around.

by DH from MD on Tue Jul 5th, 2005 at 10:46:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I didn't mean it like that (none / 0)

OK. Now, at the same time, the Church's power was already shaken by Protestantism (the Schmalkaldic League came just a year after the first attack on Vienna).

BTW, there were several further Ottoman attacks aimed at Vienna, but those were grinding down at some castle along the way. (The second got the furthest, in 1532, when such a delay let Emperor Karl V collect his troops, and the Ottoman armies turned south and laid waste to Steyerland instead.)

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Tue Jul 5th, 2005 at 11:05:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Of course (none / 0)

Protestantism was the biggest threat to the Church. But of course, Turkish Muslims invading Catholic lands couldn't have helped them retain power.

BTW, correct me if I'm wrong: didn't the Ottomans have a plan to invade Italy, only to have it cancelled because of the 1683 defeat at Vienna?

by DH from MD on Tue Jul 5th, 2005 at 11:31:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Of course (none / 0)

This could certainly be the case, but I only know that they were at war (for the upteenth time) with Venice at the time.

BTW, the Ottomans actually conquered a bit of Italian territory, for one year: a part of the heel of the Italian 'boot', with the city of Otranto, in 1480.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Tue Jul 5th, 2005 at 11:37:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Of course (none / 0)

What about Sicily? Wasn't this traded back and forth between Moslems and Christians?

by guleblanc on Tue Jul 5th, 2005 at 11:59:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Of course (none / 0)

Yep, but that was long before the Ottomans.

In the 10th or 9th century (I read of this when JPII died), there were Moslems even on the Italian peninsula - but were fought back.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Tue Jul 5th, 2005 at 04:20:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sicily (none / 0)

The muslims were thrown out of Sicily and Malta by the Normans in 1088-1091.

In 1565, the Ottomans, under Soleyman the Magnificent, tried to conquer Malta to get a stronghold in the Western Mediterranean and a base to conquer Italy. Thanks to the Knights of St John of Jerusalem, led by the Grand Master Jean Parisot de la Valette, they were defeated...

"Dieu se rit des hommes qui se plaignent des conséquences alors qu'ils en chérissent les causes" Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet

by Melanchthon on Tue Jul 5th, 2005 at 07:27:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Addition on the Ottomans - again having to add the Hungarian angle. A bit of history. After 150 years of battles, in 1526 the Ottomans decisively defeated the Hungarian kingdom. The next 150 years are generally known here as the miserable years of Turkish Subjection. However, there is some post-facto spin on this (winners write history and such). The historical fact is, that while Ottoman Occupation had a lot of casualties, the greatest misery was brought by the so-called 15-Year-War at the turn of the 16th and 17th centuries, which was this region's equivalent of the Thirty Years War. It was kicked off by the Habsburgs who held Northern Hungary at the time, ended in stalemate, and in-between most destruction was wrought by marauding vallon mercenaries who didn't receive pay, and robbed and raped and killed peasants instead. The central regions were practically depopulated, total population fell maybe by 50%.

A consequence was that a forming national independence movement wasn't fighting against the Ottomans, but the Austrians. In the next hundred years, there were several rebellions, some of them in alliance with the Ottomans. One of these gained control of most Austrian-held territory before the self-defeating 1683 Ottoman attack, which they helped. After the last one, the 1703-1711 rebellion in a Royal Hungary now largely reconquered from the Ottomans (again with elements of genocide) by the Habsburgs, its leader went to exile to a city near Istambul.

BTW, when the Hungarian capital of Buda was re-taken in 1686, in a kill-them-all siege reminiscent of the taking of Jerusalem by the Crusaders, the Ottoman castle captain was a convertite from beyond the conquered areas: a born Swissman.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Tue Jul 5th, 2005 at 10:57:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, I don't see the point in going over the history. For me, Turkey has a place in Europe.

However, I will say this. When the Turks arrived in Anatolia in the 1100s, there were only 25,000 Seljuks. So, obviously, a whole swath of the populace living in the region was converted. This population was not necessarily Christian either.

The initial invasions were actually quite brutal and consisted of forced conversions. Once in power, the Ottomans were more open to different religions. Of course, there were a few caveats. A Muslim paid less taxes and was allowed to own more property. Also, Muslims didn't have to give up their first-born males. The Janissaries were mostly Christian children. Nonetheless, other religions enjoyed a great deal of autonomy.

In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, you had many Muslims who spoke no Turkish at all. They only spoke Greek, Albanian or Slavic languages. It takes very little imagination to presume that they had been converted. Also, you had Turkish speakers who spoke no other language but were Christian. These were the Karamans. So, we don't necessarily HAVE to associate Turkey with a religion. The Ottomans were actually quite able to separate one's religious identity from an ethnic identity.

Only with nationalism, forced migrations and ethnic cleansing have the countries of the former Ottoman Empire come to seem so monolithic.

by Upstate NY on Tue Jul 5th, 2005 at 12:01:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Very good points. I read someone put it sarcastically: that most Turks are assimilated Byzantine Greeks anyway...

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Tue Jul 5th, 2005 at 04:23:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"Remind me how much of France's, Germany's and Britain's populations are Muslim?"

Could you remind me how well they mix ? Turks in france,Germany,Dutch made a country in the country.

it's foolish to want this huge non-european country in europe.

by fredouil (fredouil@gmailgmailgmail.com) on Tue Jul 5th, 2005 at 07:13:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Muslims in Europe (none / 0)

Only a fraction of the European Muslims come from Turkey.

And a significant part of the muslims mix quite well...

"Dieu se rit des hommes qui se plaignent des conséquences alors qu'ils en chérissent les causes" Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet

by Melanchthon on Tue Jul 5th, 2005 at 07:37:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Muslims in Europe (1.50 / 2)

sorry but Turks do not mix at all !!!! alsace, germany or Dutch, the problem is still the same, and for wedding they systematically import from Turkey the other conjoint.

i am currently living in australia, i read a study about how the population mix (means inter-cultural wedding) in Australia and Turks were the worst : did not mix and same until 3rd generation !!!!!!

to compare French mix pretty well and as soon as the first generation ;-)

by fredouil (fredouil@gmailgmailgmail.com) on Tue Jul 5th, 2005 at 08:52:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Muslims in Europe (none / 1)

I'm sorry but you're a racist asshole.

Most Turks mix very well. The fundies who close off are at most 15%. You should visit Germany for a change.

The funny thing is, what hinders integration is often the stumbling blocks built in by nationalist governments, governments that didn't want to admit the reality of immigration and wanted to maintain the illusion that every foreigner is a guest worker who'll return 'home' - even if that 'foreigner' was born say in Essen.

So it happens that the best players of the Turkish football team actually learnt their trade in the German football leagues.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Wed Jul 6th, 2005 at 05:59:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Uh, no. (none / 0)

What you're saying about the Netherlands is dead wrong. It is the Maroccan community that has the largest problems to intergrate and causes the majority of problems in the country. The Turks are doing, far and wide, juse fine and peachy.

by Nomad (Bjinse) on Wed Jul 6th, 2005 at 09:38:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Uh, no. (none / 0)

Actually I believe he's pretty much correct. And take note noone was even arguing allowing Marroca join the EU, so comparing it with how much worse a job Morrocans are doing integrating is pointless.

But regardless of that, I wouldn't be suprised the reverse would actually be true. The thing I think you're confusing is crime statistics and integration.

by Nussbaum on Thu Jul 7th, 2005 at 10:26:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Turks (4.00 / 2)

You know, the most likely impact of Turkey joining the EU would be, just like in Spain and Portugal in the late 80s, a return of many Turks currently in Western Europe to their own country to take advantage of the skills they have acquired in a fast-growing and familiar country.

We already have a free trade agreement with Turkey, so most of their goods come in without limitation today.

I'll post a longer item on Turkey one of these days.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Tue Jul 5th, 2005 at 03:50:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Ahahahahahah (2.00 / 2)

Totally ridiculous, do you have any report about that ?

because at this moment, report show ;

1/ Turks will stay (of course)
2/ 40% of young turks want to emigrate in Europe

by fredouil (fredouil@gmailgmailgmail.com) on Tue Jul 5th, 2005 at 07:17:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ahahahahahah (4.00 / 2)

Totally ridiculous, do you have any link on that?

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Wed Jul 6th, 2005 at 05:51:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ahahahahahah (4.00 / 2)

Funny how this "we will be swamped by immigrants" meme arises every time poorer countries join the EU, despite the unbroken record of such waves of emigration not realising.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Wed Jul 6th, 2005 at 05:52:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The limits of Europe (4.00 / 2)

There is an awful lot of anti-Turkish rhetoric floating around Europe right now, but a lot of it boils down to unsupported assertions that they're "different" and "not (Western) like us" or simply (and at least, most honestly "don't share our Christian heritage". Parse it how you will, it still boils down to racist bullshit.

Also, I can't think of another Islamic country where you're likely to meet so many Israeli vacationers.

Should Turkey be admitted to the EU? That depends, but not, IMO, on what the critics are claiming. In the next 15 years Turkey not only needs to meet the formal eligibility requirements (adoption of the aquis communautaire, democracy and human rights standards, particulary with respect to Kurds, and to a lesser extent, Alevites, and so forth), but also resolve the enormous disparities between urban and rural Turkey.

The other question of course is whether the EU will be able to accommodate further members - be they Turkey, Ukraine or whatever - and still function effectively.

The fact is that what we're experiencing right now is a top-down disaster. -Paul Krugman

by dvx (dvx.clt ät gmail dotcom) on Tue Jul 5th, 2005 at 05:15:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

state religion??? Turkey is probably the most secular nation in that region. Separation of church and state, you know. Something you are fighting to keep in the US.

by Zarah on Tue Jul 5th, 2005 at 05:50:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Turkey is officially Islamic (none / 1)

Well, as an English-reading-only American, I get most of my info about Europe from the Economist. I know that it is strongly biased in the liberal direction, and that it is strongly biased in the British direction. But, I'm not sure how an article like this one [June 25] reflects either bias, since Britain and the Economist both support Turkish membership in the EU.

"Some 3000 Syriacs [Orthodox Christians] in the south-east say their land and houses have been seized, not just by Kurds, but also by the state... the state institution that micro-manages religious life in Turkey, when it issued a sermon on March 11th to be preached at some 75,000 officially registered mosques. The sermon talked of the dangers posed to the national unity by missionaries who "work as a part of a plan to cut the ties of our citizens with the faith."

Doesn't exactly sound like freedom of religion to me...

by asdf on Tue Jul 5th, 2005 at 09:20:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Turkey is officially Islamic (none / 0)

I get most of my info about Europe from the Economist.

LOL! That explains much. (Hint: The Economist is the cheerleader of neoliberalism.)

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Tue Jul 5th, 2005 at 09:54:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Turkey is officially Islamic (none / 0)

From the same article: It matters little that only 300 souls have defected in the past eight years--or that proselytising is legally permitted.

Sounds like the USA. Or, for that matter, Russia (where the big enemy is Catholic proselytizers). Or, for that matter, in my home country or in Germany by the Catholic Right.

(BTW, I have no sympathy at all for proselytizers - but the allegedly expelled Syrians is another matter; only The Economist has not much detail on the issue.)

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Tue Jul 5th, 2005 at 10:08:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Turkey is officially Islamic (none / 0)

I tried to track down some of this from other sources. Of all places, I find the following at a Christian website:

"There's a reaction against Christianity by Islamists and nationalist groups," observed Ihsan Ozbek, chairman of the Alliance of Protestant Churches (APC). "The missionary issue is being used by them to spoil the relationship between Turkey and the EU."

...and then on the sermon, I was right to mistrust The Economist again:

Back in February, the Turkish Daily News had reported that a sermon prepared by the Religious Affairs Directorate would be read in all the nation's mosques on March 11, portraying Christian missionaries as the "new Crusaders." Reportedly this came "as a reaction to missionary activities in Turkey and EU demands for religious expression."
But in an apparent backdown, the directorate's website indicates that a different sermon was preached in its place.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Tue Jul 5th, 2005 at 10:19:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What if Italy limited the Pope's sacred precinct to the grounds of the Vatican?

I wouldn't go that far. Actually, the Bush administration is pressuring the Turks because they refuse to recognize the Eastern Orthodox head. They have also closed down churches and seminaries in and around Istanbul.

Here are some of the problems:

"The Orthodox and other religious minorities are anxious to have more control over their finances, to be able to grant work permits to foreign clergy, to freely elect their own leaders and to build and rebuild sanctuaries.

During his visit, Bush said he was satisfied that Turkey will soon let the Orthodox reopen the Halki seminary on Heybeliada Island, which was closed in 1971 under laws strictly controlling all religious education. In addition to training new clergy, this might strengthen two surviving monasteries. This is crucial since, under Turkish law, any monk who is elected Orthodox patriarch must be a Turkish citizen."

This is a good link for a rundown of a few problems:

by Upstate NY on Tue Jul 5th, 2005 at 12:11:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Just one addition.

For heaven's sake, just visit Turkey.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Tue Jul 5th, 2005 at 07:04:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I would love to. Does the dress code include Bermuda shorts, white trainers, and a big hat? :-)

by asdf on Tue Jul 5th, 2005 at 09:21:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yep. There are even nude strands for European tourists along the Mediterranean, something beyond the US dress code.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Tue Jul 5th, 2005 at 09:51:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Huh, I am somewhat surprised to see Russia be considered European though now thinking of it, I recall in my language course someone saying that Russia was "in Asia", and you should have seen the color red our Russian student's face turned!! She definitely considered herself European and was not happy to be considered otherwise. I just wonder if the typical Russian would think this, since Russia spans the European and Asian continent).

"Once in awhile we get shown the light, in the strangest of places, if we look at it right" - Hunter/Garcia

by whataboutbob on Tue Jul 5th, 2005 at 03:59:41 AM EST

When I was at school I was taught that half of Russia was in Europe and half was in Asia.

Money is a sign of Poverty - Culture Saying

by RogueTrooper on Tue Jul 5th, 2005 at 05:18:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, Russia is certainly European enough to be in the CoE (although they probably shouldn't for human rights reasons alone), the UEFA and the like, but I'd say they will never be part of the EU, or not for a very long time anyway. They really don't understand what it entails and they would not tolerate the sharing of sovereignty it entails

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Tue Jul 5th, 2005 at 05:22:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I have always thought that Russia would be the European Union's natural eastern border. I can see Turkey joining the European Union ( many of the improvements in Turkey's human rights' record has been because of the possibility of ascension ).

Money is a sign of Poverty - Culture Saying

by RogueTrooper on Tue Jul 5th, 2005 at 05:33:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I certqinly see Turkey joining before Russia, although Turkey will not be a piece of cake. At least they know the general direction, they are making real efforts to go there (with occasional lapses), and Europe seems willing to consider it (if not all its population).

I did a fairly detailed post about the pros and cons of Turkey in Europe and I will post it once I get back home where I can find it.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Tue Jul 5th, 2005 at 01:49:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Russians (4.00 / 3)

As you have read in my bio on Plutonium Page's roll call, I got my BA in Russian and Eastern European Studies from U. Michigan, spent 3 semesters at the Moscow Institute of Social and Political Studies my junior year...and was married to one for eight years.

Here's my explanation. That doesn't surprise me, Russians are nationalists but they are also so diverse. Geographically, many explain that everything east of the Urals is Asia and everthing West is Europe. That's also problematic demographically. My ex-wife's father was half Bashkir/half Tartar and her mother was Russian. Created family problems on the Muslim side. Russians would (including mother-in-law) would call the Vostochniie (Easterners). Russians will also tell you that after 240 years of Mongol rule, there is no longer any Russians with pure slavic blood. I believe this may be on explanation foe the "Russian Soul" as it gives a unifying factor in the culture not based on blood lines. There are also strong neo-nationalistic feelings there now that tend to favor the perception of the "civilised" Europe over the "backward" east.

Symbolically, this is why the Russian Imperial Eagle had two heads, one looking west and one looking east.

One anecdote. My ex and I were having drinks with some Germans back in the US. One girl mention atrocities of German women who were raped by the Red Army. My wife exclamed "Ne nada tooda leyzit" in a menancing tone (meaning something roughly like "you shouldn't slimed/crawled there in the first place"). There was a look of uncomfortable suprise at my ex blurting out in Russian. I thought, oh shit, we're going to have an international incident, they're still fucking fighting WWII. After an uncomfortable, I changed the subject.

The ex's grandfather's were in the Red Army, one as a doctor from Stalingrad to Berlin, was on the Ausschwitz liberation medical team, and survived the War. The other, the Tartar, didn't survive Berlin.

Hope that's insightful.

"Schiller sprach zu Goethe, Steck in dem Arsch die Flöte! Goethe sagte zu Schiller, Mein Arsch ist kein Triller!"

by Jeffersonian Democrat (rzg6f@virginia.edu) on Wed Jul 6th, 2005 at 07:02:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The limits of Europe (4.00 / 2)

I'm reminded of something Emmanuel Todt, the French sociologist with partial Jewish-American roots who three decades ago predicted the fall of the Soviet Union with the correct reasons, and who recently predicted the fall of the USA in the next decades, wrote in the latter book. He had an argument about the correlation between the form of the ideals of egalitarianism and universalism preferred in a society, and the predominant way of inheritance in a family.

In this train of thought, he also argued that Anglo-Saxon culture feels the need to "draw a line" (until which everyone is equal, beyond which everyone is 'different'). Now in truth, this is not exclusive to Anglo-Saxons, and in some way, I sense even in this post, not to mention the stock Islamophobic comment. Here is my counter-view:

There is no such thing as a limit of Europe. There is a continuity. Should the EU (its leaders and its population) recognise this, there could arise a vision of the EU whose expansion is open-ended: bit-by-bit, if some neighbour wants to join, with time (years-decades-century) she could do so. (Maybe its name would change with time - say, Euro-Mediterranean Union.) Also, there may be further internal sub-structuring (Schengen and the Euro are already such) and regional exceptions (unless Bliar sets an example by giving back the British rebate :-) ).

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Tue Jul 5th, 2005 at 07:02:13 AM EST

I agree with those who find Turkish membership appropriate and even desirable, assuming that all the standard conditions are met or subjected to mutually satisfactory negotiation. As Jerome has pointed out elsewhere, this is not intended to be the overnight acquisition of a large new member state, but rather a gradual reduction of obstacles to accession. I also agree with Colman that the case against Turkey is often framed in prejudicial terms. There will undoubtedly be some problems, but slamming the door in the face of the Turks seems much more likely to cause greater ones. Besides, I feel sure that Mozart would be on the pro-Turkish side.

Hannah K. O'Luthon

by Hannah K OLuthon on Tue Jul 5th, 2005 at 08:44:47 AM EST

I'm not saying it's framed in prejudicial terms. I'm saying that a lot of it is a manifestation of prejudice, generally pretty thinly disguised.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Jul 5th, 2005 at 08:48:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yeah, I try to euphemize, but agree that opposition usually seems to be mere prejudice. Presumably there are serious arguments to be made for moving cautiously, but they probably would apply in equal measure to Russia or Ukraine, large countries with low average income and sometimes questionable committment to human rights. Of course, the latter objection might even be raised should the U.S. ever apply for membership in the E.U.

Hannah K. O'Luthon

by Hannah K OLuthon on Tue Jul 5th, 2005 at 09:46:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

That's the key I think: being poor and having a dodgy human rights record and a slightly delicate grasp of democracy seems to only be a problem for Turkey.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Jul 5th, 2005 at 09:55:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

That's the key I think: being poor and having a dodgy human rights record and a slightly delicate grasp of democracy seems to only be a problem for Turkey.

I was about to say, the bottom line is human rights for me...then your statement stopped me short...with the current serious problem with human rights, would the US be considered for entry into the EU??

"Once in awhile we get shown the light, in the strangest of places, if we look at it right" - Hunter/Garcia

by whataboutbob on Tue Jul 5th, 2005 at 10:27:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Don't get me wrong: I'm not minimising the human rights issue, but it's one of the things Turkey already has to address in the next fifteen years or so. We're talking about things that will happen in 2018, not next week.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Jul 5th, 2005 at 10:52:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Practical questions (none / 1)

There are practical questions about Turkey's membership that seem very difficult to me. Forget about racist theories and concentrate on the practical issues:

Turkey has long borders with Syria, Iraq, and Iran. Can immigration from these countries into Europe be controlled?
How is the interest rate of the Euro to be managed in a country where the charging of interest is prohibited by the state religion?http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0OGT/is_1_1/ai_113563592/pg_2
What is the plan for controlling the heroin supply from Turkey? With an open border to Europe, you won't have to smuggle it in any more: "Inspectors at the Kapitan Andreevo border checkpoint intercepted 22.8 kg of heroin, the press office of the regional customs directorate in nearby Plovdiv said on June 20. The drugs were found in an Audi car with Bulgarian licence plates being driven by a Bulgarian national, who was travelling with his wife from Turkey. The heroin was packed in 44 packages hidden in a special compartment in the car's fuel tank. The driver was issued a statement of customs violation. This is the sixth time inspectors have intercepted heroin at Kapitan Andreevo since the beginning of the year. They have found a total of 135 kg at the checkpoint." http://www.sofiaecho.com/article/news-roundup/id_11647/catid_5
What about the CAP? 40% of the Turkish population works in agriculture (compared to 25% in Poland and 4% in France). If the EU wants to continue to support agriculture as it has in the past, won't the bulk of the EU budget go directly to Turkey as CAP funds?
What languages will be used in the European Parliament? Sure, in theory there are 21 or more languages in use, but in reality the working languages are English and French, but that's gradually changing towards English and German. With the entry of Turkey, perhaps the practical EU languages will be German and Turkish, with English retained since "everybody speaks English."

Maybe there are already plans on how to approach these problems...or perhaps I just don't "get" how the integration of Turkey into the EU is supposed to happen.

by asdf on Tue Jul 5th, 2005 at 09:59:20 AM EST

Re: Practical questions (none / 0)

That problem already exists and won't change if Turkey joins. It would change (Bulgarian and Greek borders fall away as part of the second barrier) if Turkey were to join Schengen (the open-borders treaty). Given how long Britain opted out of Schengen and still doesn't plan to join, this is not a close prospect. As for the long term, I don't see why it could be impossible to increase border security.
(a) that provision will be dropped, (2) Turkey stay out of the Euro like Britain, Sweden and Denmark.
Same as 1). BTW, the heroin coming from Turkey is not coming from Turkey - it is coming from Afghanistan (where the US fails to put in place any meaningful plan to curb production, letting allied warlords finance themselves with it).
Yes, the CAP would change. But Turkey's joining is way beyond even 2013, when the current new EU members - old members balance will set in, so working out the details is not an issue for today (i.e. the economies of all countries you list will transform significantly in the meantime).
There are 21 languages in use. Interpreters aren't paid to sit around. As for working languages in informal meetings, I don't think German will replace French, and even less that Turkish will come along. This is not a function of how many citizens a country has, but how many other countries speak the language. French is official language in three EU members plus Switzerland, German is official language in four members and Switzerland, plus perhaps the most spoken second language here in Central-Eastern Europe (English may take over, but mostly in the younger generation). Turkish is only official in two future EU members, plus spoken by large minorities (that may enough for a few representatives in the EU) in maybe three others. But, either way: I don't see how this language issue is a "problem". (Except you are trying to troll some Frenchmen here.)

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Tue Jul 5th, 2005 at 10:38:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Practical questions (none / 0)

languages. Never been a problem, won't be a problem in the future, we're used to juggling between languages. One more won't make that big of a difference.
islamic banks. I'm pretty sure that won't be a problem too. We have a few islamic banks here in Belgium and the other EU countries probably have them too considering the fact that Europe already has a significant muslim population.

by Zarah on Tue Jul 5th, 2005 at 10:40:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Practical questions (none / 1)

2. By being a secular state whose central bank is perfectly happy to deal with interest rates? Like it is now?

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Jul 5th, 2005 at 11:04:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Practical questions (none / 1)

"the state religion"

Just to repeat that Turkey, though a Muslim country, doesn't have a state religion.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Tue Jul 5th, 2005 at 11:18:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Practical questions (none / 1)

Are you the same asdf who wrote this...?

Europeans maybe don't get it... (none / 0)

Turkey should apologize and get this over with, no question. But what interests me is the attitude towards Turkey's potential joining of the EU: The diarist seems to not welcome Turkey into the union.

From an American viewpoint, I can on the one hand understand the problems that Turkey would bring to the EU. But on the other hand, in our case we would generally WELCOME the addition of a new state because of the many benefits that come with an expanded union.

For example, suppose that Mexico decided to join the United States. Industry would love this, because a whole new population of low wage workers would become available. Mexicans would love it, because they would be able to freely move between Mexico and California, offering much better job opportunities. Americans would like the new low cost goods and the increased ability to travel to and retire to a warm climate while retaining the advantages of American residency. About the only people who wouldn't like it are Mexican politicians who would lose prestige and money.

Why isn't it this way with Turkey and the EU? If France, Germany, and Poland (mortal enemies for centuries) can get together, why can't Turkey join too?
by asdf on Fri

Jun 17th, 2005 at 10:16:26 AM PDT

The world's northernmost desert wind.

by Sirocco (sirocco2005ATgmail.com) on Tue Jul 5th, 2005 at 12:31:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Practical questions (none / 0)

Yep, same one. User names are unique and persistent around here.

I don't have a horse in this race, or an axe to grind, or an ox about to be gored. I'm just curious about what the thinking is...

by asdf on Tue Jul 5th, 2005 at 06:28:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No comments about Israel yet? (none / 1)

The countries that I find most fascinating in that list are:

Armenia is the only one of the 3 caucasian countries to have chosen a European international telephone code. Of course, they will probably have joined Europe because their whole population will have come here before the actual territory belongs to the union (the country is emptying itself currently);
Israel has an Asian telephone code, but belongs to UEFA and Eurovision. They also look like Europeans which, as seen in other comments, is a not unsignificant element for acceptance. I don't see them entering the EU or any intermediate structure without Palestine doing so at the same time, but I actually see that happening in my lifetime
Morocco is not on the list, but has already participated to the Eurovision contest (actually, the requirement is to be a member of the European Television Union, which includes most of North Africa, Syria and Lebanon). I also see them, and other Mediterranean countries, as being logical future members for an extended democratic union - also a lifetime span project.

My only question is - how fast? I see Morocco coming in before Ukraine. What do you think?

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Tue Jul 5th, 2005 at 01:59:53 PM EST

It seems to me Ukraine will join long before Morocco. First, only the former is actually in Europe. Second, few EU countries would welcome the mass Moroccan immigration you would in all likelihood see. Third, Morocco is a dirt poor third world countries where much of the rural pop lives in medieval conditions (I've been there twice and can attest to this). Fourth, it is a brutal police state and a quasi-absolutist monarchy. The largest and only well-organized political party, which is formally cut off from power, is Islamist; this is probably much more democratically minded than the King. Fifth, there's the little trifle of occypying Western Sahara.

A better question might be whether Norway will join before Ukraine...

The world's northernmost desert wind.

by Sirocco (sirocco2005ATgmail.com) on Tue Jul 5th, 2005 at 02:42:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

you're kinding isnt it ? (2.33 / 3)

Are you Kinding, Norway will never join this group of looser, Europe is not Europe anymore, is sinking faster and faster.

we had a begining of common identity, recent enlargement damaged it, and Turkey kills it for sure.

end of the game, the population will turn away of this stupidity, only the useless Conseil de l' " europe " will stay.

how long it will take for our politicians to understand that europe is dead for the people ?, it was an stuff from the past, we must build something else more coherent more ambitious but EUROPEAN, something like we had in 1992. sniff

by fredouil (fredouil@gmailgmailgmail.com) on Tue Jul 5th, 2005 at 08:35:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Defeatist, are you? (none / 0)

The one question that has been growing in my mind in the era after the French non! and Dutch nee! for the European 'Constituion' is this: how much alive was Europe "for the people" early on, during the seventies and eighties?

Was it any different, or do we see a growing awareness of Europe, albeit a negative one? I don't know.

by Nomad (Bjinse) on Wed Jul 6th, 2005 at 09:57:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Good question (none / 0)

My hopes are set for Ukraine, though. Although there was a critical post some time ago about Norway, as long as they can keep up their posture of "worlds" perfect country" and keep on staying one of Europe's biggest oil producers, I don't see why Norway would start considering to request entrance.

I see it like this. Entrance into the EU for Ukraine would greatly benefit the country and its people and bring greater wealth to it, like it did for Spain, Portugal, Greece. Entrance into the EU for Norway would bring mucho troubles and very few profits to counter-balance them.

by Nomad (Bjinse) on Wed Jul 6th, 2005 at 09:53:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good question (none / 0)

there was a critical post some time ago about Norway

Would that be this by your sincerely? It was meant as satire...

I'm Norwegian myself and favor EU membership, chiefly because FAAPP (for almost all practical purposes) we are already members through the European Economic Area, but with no influence on the torrent of directives we have to implement. However, you're right that economically speaking it is probably better to stay outside. There are also the matters of sovereignty over the fisheries - perceived as important, since the EU countries have drained their seas - and the right to pursue an independent agricultural policy promoting small-scale farming in the interest of distributed settlement. These are the chief reasons why there is still no stable 'yes' majority.

The world's northernmost desert wind.

by Sirocco (sirocco2005ATgmail.com) on Wed Jul 6th, 2005 at 10:37:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Uhm, yes. (none / 1)

That's the one... Was that satire? Oh dear. Look, I'll read it again. Replying on this board is still rather new to me, I'm sure I'll slip more often. Didn't mean offense. Oslo is still one of the highest rated cities (of the world) to live in. I wonder how they come up with that list, though.

All good points - especially the agricultural policy and fisheries seem particularly important to me. We're in interesting times with EU now; I hope Euro Trib keeps a steady focus on the agricultural policy of the EU. I'm all for change, and it could happen in the coming period. Anyway, drifting off-topic.

by Nomad (Bjinse) on Wed Jul 6th, 2005 at 06:44:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's pretty interesting with regard to Morocco.

I'm always fascinated by American categories for race or ethnicity. There are only a few official categories, but I've always considered it odd that a Moroccan or Northern African is considered among the majority in the US. Racially, Moroccans are considered white. Now, if you're from Spain on the other hand, you are considered a minority non-white in the US. It's a truly bizarre methodology. No one has explained it to me yet.

by Upstate NY on Tue Jul 5th, 2005 at 10:36:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's borderline bizarre. Does the classification extend to affirmative action in colleges, et cetera?

The world's northernmost desert wind.

by Sirocco (sirocco2005ATgmail.com) on Wed Jul 6th, 2005 at 10:40:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]