Wonderful and informative web site.I used information from that site its great.
[url=][/url]

Excellent browsing have the to

great site

The US has no real say as to who is admitted to the EU and the UK is such a euro-skeptic that it is peripheral in decision making within the EU.

Seriously though the EU has more than enough in absorbing the recently admitted eastern European countries, nation building in the Balkans, and also negotiating with potential new eastern European and Balkans members. At least two decades of negotiations and development.

In any case the EU and NATO are not synomonous . Those who wish for a Federal EU propose a separate defense agreement under Eurocorp free of NATO and US hegemony.

Israel and Turkey within the EU would be high irony one a country of holocaust survivors the other of holocaust deniers!!!

Brian, USA | December 7, 2006 03:24 PM

I fear that you are a bit behind the times. The plan is for Israel to join NATO and the EU. (PS: I am not exaggerating...that is the next step, at least according the US-UK axis). It will give the EU a whole new dimension, won't it?

Thats right Brian, funny how Turkish membership of th EU is wholeheartedly backed by the US, but not Russian membership now that would launch Europe back as an independent economic global power and supply the energy, labour and investment needs for both parties.

Do these same American pundits support the legalisation of the estimated 10 million illegals migrant workers in the US in addition to an open border for the free movement of labour between the US and Latin America?

I'm for Turkey joining the EU as long as Israel can join the Arab League. When Arabs recognize Israelis as a semitic people who are from the same freaking place they are and deserve the same rights, the maybe the EU can recognize that half of Turkey is European and should be allowed to join the European body.

And i'm not even Jewish or anything. I just have to laugh at the hypocrisy when i see it. You can't have it both ways!!!

This is for Everybody, All Europe immigrated from middle east. if you don't know you sould found out.Thanks.You will be thinking like a cow.

"There is no southern Greek part, there is however a northern part occupied by the Turkish Military."

Right! Like there is no Southern Ireland, there is however a northern part occupied by British Military.

The EU should hope that Turkey still wants to join. Turks already live in large numbers in the E.U., as do E.U. citizens in Turkey. If the E.U. doesn't reign in its own extremists, one day soon they'll be pointing fingers and asking, "Who lost Turkey?"

Cyprus needs to be resolved, to be sure, but if the EU keeps dragging its feet, the U.S.A. should pursue our interests and invite Turkey & Isreal into NAFTA along with all of South America and possibly Morroco. Think bold.

Last summer I visited Turkey for a vacation. I found the Turkish people, for the most part, to be hospitable and nice. However, Turkish society is an Asiatic society not a European one. Being a member of NATO does not make a society European. The NATO membership was also offered to Iran! Being democratic does not make a society European. Asia has a number of democratic societies; Japan, South Korea and the biggest democracy in the world India. But, none of these societies are European. The US government is pushing for Turkey's inclusion into the EU (the UK is just emulating the US). America's Middle East problems are not going to be solved by admitting an Asiatic country into EU.

Turkey has a proud history. We appreciate that. However, Turkey is an Asiatic country that has to find her place in Asia not in Europe.

Sorry, that reference isn't clear. the source is

http://countrystudies.us/

This website contains the on-line versions of books previously published in hard copy by the Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress as part of the Country Studies/Area Handbook Series sponsored by the U.S. Department of the Army between 1986 and 1998. Each study offers a comprehensive description and analysis of the country or region's historical setting, geography, society, economy, political system, and foreign policy.

As recently as 1995 there were concerns in Europe that there might be a military coup in Turkey. The idea that the country is a free, stable democracy ready to join the EU in the immediate future is risible.

When Turkey has established a track record as a stable liberal democracy it will be ready to join an association that is exclusively for stable liberal democracies.

From the US Library of Congress:

The political obstacles to EU membership concern Turkey's domestic and foreign policies. Because the European body prides itself on being an association of democracies, the 1980 military coup--in a country enjoying associate status--was a severe shock. The harshness of repression under the military regime further disturbed the EC--many EC leaders knew personally the former Turkish leaders whom the military put on trial for treason. The EC responded by freezing relations with Turkey and suspending economic aid. A related body, the Council of Europe, also expelled Turkey from its parliamentary assembly. The restoration of civilian rule gradually helped to improve Turkey's image. In 1985 Germany's prime minister signaled the EC's readiness to resume dialogue with Turkey by accepting an invitation to visit Ankara. The following year, the EC restored economic aid and permitted Turkey to reoccupy its seats in European deliberative councils. Nevertheless, frequent veiled threats by Turkey's senior military officers of future interventions if politicians "misbehaved" did not inspire confidence in Europe that democracy had taken permanent root in Turkey. As late as 1995, some Europeans remained apprehensive about the possibility of another military coup, a concern that was shared by various Turkish politicians.

EU members have also expressed reservations about Turkey's human rights record. Amnesty International and Helsinki Watch, two human rights monitoring organizations supported by the EU, have reported the persistence of practices such as arbitrary arrests, disappearances, extrajudicial killings, torture in prisons, and censorship. The Turkish Human Rights Association, itself subject to harassment and intimidation tactics, has prepared detailed chronologies and lists of human rights abuses, including the destruction of entire villages without due process, and has circulated these reports widely in Europe. The documented reports of human rights abuses, like the coup rumors, sustained questions about Turkey's qualifications to join a collective body of countries that have striven to achieve uniform standards for protecting citizen rights.

-----------------------------------------

Seems clear and reasonable enough to me.

Why should Turkey be in the EU? What is in it for Turkey now?

Ten years ago Europe could have perhaps convinced Turkey that it would never break the cycle of hyper-inflation and debt, having spent so long in self-imposed economic isolation, surrounded by Communist and Middle Eastern totaliarian states and had Turkey on its own terms.

Unlike other EU states, Turkey has not had EU funds thrown at it during its candidacy to get its economy up to EMU criteria, and yet within a couple of years it will qualify easily. The recent OECD projections have Turkey growing at 7.2% for the next five years while inflation falls to 3.8%.

With each round of expansion, the aid for new states falls as the EU electorate gets more and more fed up and funding reforms are passed. This aid pool will be far less generous by the time Turkey joins, if it indeed goes ahead. By that time, Turkey will also be far more prosperous - the 6th largest economy in Europe within ten years, according to think-tank estimates. The reduced budget simply would not be big enough to make much difference to an economy of that size.

The EU can therefore not promise to do for Turkey what it did for Spain, Greece, Ireland etc - 1) the funds will not be there 2) Turkey is already on its way.

Indeed, all estimates have Turkey being a net contributor and an economical boost for the EU within a few years of joining.

Given the complete lack of investment the EU has made, Turkey should feel free to explore other options, which it certainly has. It is not either or. Turkey can keep its markets in Europe while making similiar agreements with the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, an idea with Putin welcomes - also continuing to expand energy transport deals with its central Asian allies and building on the recent increased trade with the Middle East. Being burdened with a mass of EU rules and regulations has not exactly helped other large EMU economies since the currency became effective.

It is also naive to think that the EU can shut the door on Turkey today and not have member states breaking rank in years to come to commit to trade deals with Turkey individually or lobbying for the EU as a whole to make the move. Member states are not just going to ignore a prosperous, populous country on its doorstep because a few hundred thousand people in Cyprus, who brought about a problem through an 11 year ultra-nationalist drive for Enosis, wanted some leverage once upon a time.

The mindnumbing thing about this is, having missed the economic potential of Turkey and now no longer having the leverage to push them around - the EU seems hell bent on achieving the same failure over its demographic issues. The writing is on the wall - Europe is on the verge of demographic demise. Not enough babies are being born and life expectancy gets longer and longer - leaving the heavily socialised EU economies with a pension burden they cannot carry. And yet, instead of planning the plunder of Turkey's young population to counter this, the idea of Turks going there are what they protest about the most.

I appreciate Europeans do not want Turks there. Tough. They will need a workforce from somewhere and from my experience, they could do far worse than Turks. I hope it does not take any more exploding trains to prove that particular point. The role of Turkish guest workers in fueling the German economical expansion should not be forgotten. This was a demographically more desirable model of migration than the asylum seekers going to Europe now, which will continue if Turkey does not join.

Just as the EU failed to snap Turkey up ten years ago when it could dictate terms, it is failing to act ahead of time again. Does the EU think that once it is in the grips of its population fall it will have a stronger hand to deal with Turkey or a weaker one?

Europeans should be wary of the current electioneering going on. For example, what possible value is their in France alienating Turkey with so much needless, overt hostility? Is it really worth creating long-standing bad feeling with a country of Turkey's geopolitical importance just because Sarkozy wants to win an election next year? If France has a problem integrating its Moroccan and Algerian minorities candidates should propose better ways of dealing with them, instead of lashing out at the first available Muslim country to please the electorate.

In the same vain, Europeans should be aware that the current mood in Turkey ahead of its own elections next year is that being pro-EU is a liability. The Prime Minister cannot even be seen to be crossing the road for the EU at the moment - and if he were already crossing when the EU asks, he must turn back.

I for one sincerely hope Turkey stays out of the EU and retains its sovereignty and its workers for its own economy and its own direction. But that does not mean I will sit silent when I see all the misinformed people sniping about an undeserving people - basically whining about how much they will cost Europe when in reality Europeans should be calculating the cost of not having embraced Turkey.

I wonder which factor drives such a popular idea despite a complete across-the-board agreement among economists to the contrary.

I will live and die here among Turks who welcomed me into their country and into their hearts and hope to see during that time a resurgent Turkey that does not have to put up with this sort of nonsense. These are a dignified people and deserve respect from the EU. Soon they will command that respect.

Although Turkey is also a member of NATO,nobody questions her being an Islamic country,its size,population and economic status. For decades Turkey acted as the guardian of the the Western World against the Soviet Block.In order to fulfill this task properly Turkish governments invested the money that they had to invest in order to make it a more prosperous country, on the army and the armament.And now very rightfully,she wants to be a partner of the European Union ,there are unjustifiable objections which display bias and hypocracy against Turkish People.I believe that those who call themselves European should abstain from double standarts.

When Greeks and Turks are in agreement with:

"We're all dysfunctional...GET OVER IT!"

Then Cyprus will not be a divisive issue between your nations.

Ultimately the decision to become part of the EU will be up to the people, in democratic fora...as their government, having then met the conditions and invited to join, honors the will of the people one way or another.

It is not for me as an American to opine further as to whether Turkey should join or not, as that is for Turks to decide.

Interesting how the United States and the UK wishes to see Turkey admitted to the EU.

Allegedly it would improve relations between the "West" and the "Middle East" in some unspecified way; event though as far as I am aware Turkey is looked upon as an apostate country and former colonial master in much of the Middle East.

Among other outstanding issues (most notably Cyprus) it has territorial disputes with Syria, an embargo against Armenia and water resource conflict with Iraq.

Never mind it's refusal to recognize the Armenian genocide and its recent brutal campaign in suppressing Kurdish separatists and its refusal to recognize ethnic and national Kurdish rights.

Can one imagine Turkey agreeing in principle to the peaceful session of its Kurdish provinces like the UK has agreed to in Northern Ireland?

The fact that the modern Turkish republic is secularly ultra-nationalist and has fascist roots under Ataturk is as much an impediment to its acceptance in the EU as a "normal European" country as there is the fear of Turkey becoming over run at some future time by Islamic extremism.

Turkey's road to secularism and peculiar military backed democracy is no model for the other countries in the Middle East and un-exportable at that.

As for being a NATO member, not every country in the EU is a NATO member and the EU itself is gradually moving in the direction of an independent (i.e. not under US stewardship) military capability.

But perhaps this gets closer to the reason the US and the UK are so keen on Turkish EU membership, perhaps in part as a Trojan horse to forestall any deepening of EU federalism or independent military capability while forcing the EU to engage in the Middle East through an American led NATO.

I just don't think the Finns or the Irish or the Swedes or the Austrians (all non-NATO EU members) are that interested in patrolling a future EU frontier bordering on Iraq, Iran and Syria while condoning the suppression of Kurdish national rights while at the same time attempting to assimilate low wage Turkish migrants.

And indeed I fail to see beyond the "feel good" factor how a Muslim member of the EU would be a burst of sunshine and light for a European Muslim underclass or curb the rise of Islamic extremism.

Indeed several European nations are not EU members but are members of NATO and have a favourable association with the EU through EFTA;

There is no reason why something of this kind can not be arranged for Turkey or for Morocco or for Tunisia or for Algeria.

If EU is to admit "Muslim nations" then they will be Albania, Bosnia and Kosovo all properly of the European family of nations. If the EU wants to admit a large new member state to the east then perhaps it should be Ukraine.

Mohammed Asi | December 4, 2006 05:11 PM

The EU is not NATO. There is therefore no contradiction in Turkey being a member of NATO, but not the EU. Otherwise, the US & Canada better join the EU. That is of course, absurd.

Turkey's value to NATO went hand-in-hand with the value of Greece to NATO. Southeastern Europe was anchored by BOTH; either alone would have been a liability for NATO.

Although I believe that Turkey CAN join the EU, Turkey must demonstrate that it can indeed abide by ALL agreements Turkey has made, and that it can indeed respect the rights of all its minorities. Unfortunately, Turkey is lagging behind her promises and commitments in these areas. Instead, Turkey behaves as though she expects to select the agreements made by which Turkey will abide.

This is a sign of immaturity and insecurity. It is incumbent on Turkey to overcome these, since Turkey made the agreements in the first place.

If Europeans are allowed to vote in Turkey's accession (as opposed to accession by bureaucratic fiat), they will undoubtedly reject it. And then we will see just how irrelevant the pope is to that continent, which is no longer Christain-majority anyway (and which makes talk of a "Christian club" anachronistic).

Turkey should join the EU:
-For economic reasons: a sizable market for European exports and inexpensive pool of labor due aging of European population-which will improve European competitive edge;
-True, Turkey has an important strategic position and role and proved its stabilizing influence throughout the cold war to the advantage of NATO and therefore contributed substantially to the security of Europe;
-If Turkey joins EU, it will be a positive signal to the Muslim world that Europe and the West are not that islamophopic after all; its exclusion will send a very negative signal to the Muslim world that Europe is an "Exclusive Christian Club," in addition to not being a good neighbor's policy.
-Unfortunately Turkey has not played so any concrete influencing role on the regional stability of the Middle East: the Arab-Israeli conflict is still bubbling, Iraq bloodletting continues etc...Turkey has that potential to influence the region positively but it has been constrained by the heavy influence of the heavy handed military
establishment that is ready to interfere in Turkish politics and by its relationship with USA's disastrous policies in the region.

Europe's position is contradictory in terms: one the one hand it accepted Muslim Turkey when it worked to its advantage-in NATO since 1949 as loyal alley in the defense of Europe- but it is now rejecting the same Muslim Turkey when it applies to EU membership, is not that hypocrisy?

Jimmy, Washington, DC | December 4, 2006 01:13 PM

I am sure that Turkey has made great contributions to the stability of the Middle East and the Eastern Mediterranean as a whole. Given sometime, we can probably think of one (by the way, this past summer there was no contribution by anyone in Lebanon). In the meantime, the more accurate statement is that including Turkey in the EU, MAY contribute to stability, if Turkey drops her belligerence towards all of her neighbors. Turkey will also be required to respect her minorities, and that will help stabilize the area. Note, the substantive changes require considerable change on the part of Turkey.

By the way, don't you think that the mantra about a 'Christian Club' is misleading, irrelevant, demeaning, and somewhat bigoted against Christianity and Christians?

Martin, Cardiff, Wales,

Please note the article is an opinion piece written by a Turk living in Turkey, not by a Washington Post writer.

While it seems once again that my friends in the United Kingdom are sounding off on their narrow-minded and short-sighted views, they fail to see the great importance that Turkey is to the stability of European-Middle Eastern relations. Turkey deserves and is capable of becoming a member of the European Union. The previous decade of cooling relations between Turkey and Europe, have led to the rise of anti-West voices in Turkey full of ammunition that the West has been "playing Turkey" for so long. Turkey is of strategic importance not only to bridging the gap between the West and the East but also to curbing the rise of Islamic extremism in European states. Its economic value is uncontested, even by the dissenting EU states, with the EU-Turkey Customs Union being a major success. If the EU wishes to be a legitimate voice in world and middle eastern affairs and prove that EU is not merely a Christian club, but a world power that is willing to embrace the ideology of peace, democracy, and freedom (and the many more normative factors), it must not stop the process of Turkish membership.

Why on Earth should Europe be expected to fund the modernisation of such a vast, impoverished country? What's more, a country that is primarily in Asia?

It's crystal clear what Turkey would gain from this mismarriage, but far less clear what Europe would gain from Turkey's inclusion in what is already a vast and unwieldy Union. The idea that we need Turkey to prove our multicultural credentials is not only an absurd illustration of America's ignorance of the wider World, but insults European muslims and immigrant alike, who number tens of millions and have absolutely no connection with Turkey.

I await with eager anticipation the Post's essay on why America should welcome Mexico into such an embrace.

"The obstacles created by the short-sighted decision to make Cyprus, or more correctly its southern Greek part, a member without a resolution of the problems with Turkey are real."

There is no southern Greek part, there is however a northern part occupied by the Turkish Military.