Registreren kan je hier. Problemen met registreren of reageren op de berichten? Een verloren wachtwoord? Gelieve een mail te zenden naar [email protected] met vermelding van je gebruikersnaam. |
|
Registreer | FAQ | Forumreglement | Ledenlijst | Markeer forums als gelezen |
soc.culture.belgium Via dit forum kun je alle berichten lezen die worden gepost op de nieuwsgroep soc.culture.belgium. Je kunt hier ook reageren op deze berichten, reacties worden dan ook in deze nieuwsgroep gepost. Vergeet niet om dit te lezen. |
|
Discussietools |
27 oktober 2006, 09:45 | #1 |
Berichten: n/a
|
The Sins of the EU regarding Turkey
http://www.fpri.org/enotes/20061025....udistance.html
" Turkey and the European Union: Keeping a Friendly Distance By Michael Radu October 25, 2006 Michael Radu, Ph.D., is Co-Chair of FPRI's Center on Terrorism, Counter-Terrorism and Homeland Security. He is currently at work on a book on Islamism in Europe. The alienation between Turkey and the EU has grown on both sides to the point that more and more people in Brussels and Ankara are beginning to realize that not only is Turkey's EU membership unlikely, but that it is not in the interest of either party. The immediate problem is Cyprus, where the EU has committed every error possible and an issue which more than any other unites all Turks. To begin with, the EU's decision to admit Greek Cyprus as a full member was made apparently without a full understanding of the implications. In April 2004, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's plan for reunification - which 65 percent of Turkish Cypriot voters approved - was rejected by the Greek Cypriots by over 75 percent in a referendum. But Brussels went ahead with the admission of Greek Cyprus anyway, even though Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan had risked all his political capital (and perhaps the existence of his government) to pressure the Turkish Cypriots to accept the plan. He did so even though he was fully aware that, once Cyprus was in the EU, Nicosia would be in a position to demand more and more concessions from Ankara. Meanwhile, under Greek pressure, the EU continues to punish, through blockade and isolation, the Turkish side, while threatening Ankara for not opening its ports to the Greeks. As correctly perceived in Turkey, Erdogan and the Turkish Cypriots made all the unpopular concessions and received only humiliation from Brussels. The more long-term and profound issue is the EU's political demands on Turkey demands that are a case study of contradiction and confusion. Turkey has complied with many of Brussels' demands - constitutional changes regarding human rights freedom of expression, minority rights, etc. Kurds now have the right to use their own language and have a Kurdish media, again against popular sentiment and well-founded fears of Kurdish separatism. The EU continues to push, often vocally and, in the eyes of many in Turkey, irresponsibly, for the elimination of the military's political role and influence. Why is this irresponsible on the EU's part? Because, despite government denials Islamism, including fundamentalism, has been on the rise in Turkey ever since the present Justice and Development Party (AKP) came to power in 2003. That fact has been repeatedly brought to the public's attention by Chief of General Staff Gen. Yasar Buyukanit and Land Forces Commander Gen. Ilker Basbug. Moreover, Navy chief Admiral Yener Karahanoglu has clearly stated that "The Turkish armed forces will never make the concessions that have been asked of it on the road to the European Union." The military leaders have a constitutional obligation to protect secularism - something that seems to have escaped notice by its Brussels' critics. The seldom mentioned but most powerful reason for opposition to Turkey's membership in the EU in Europe is its Muslim identity and fear of the impact some 70 million Muslim Turks in a post-religious Europe already threatened by growing Islamism among its existing 20 million Muslim residents. While that is a legitimate fear it is counterproductive to at the same time insist on Turkey's weakening its most powerful and popular secularist force - the military. In Turkey, the issue of "minority rights" is directly related to the Kurdish issue and territorial integrity. At a time when the interpretation of "minority rights" especially in territorial terms, threatens the integrity of EU members such as Spain or Belgium, and Turkey itself is experiencing a limited revival of Kurdish Marxist/separatist terrorism, one experienced Turkish observer has observed that "To gain admission into the EU, Turkey is being asked to solve the problem of Kurdish separatism with the kind of methods that the EU countries have abandoned. Turkey cannot solve that problem and fight Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) terror with such methods." By pushing for more and more "rights" for a separatist minority (including PKK terrorists) within the Kurdish minority amounting to the very same multiculturalism that is now widely under assault within Europe, Brussels demonstrates, if not a tin ear, hypocrisy. When Turkish prosecutors bring to trial and courts condemn separatists or supporters of Armenian claims of "genocide" by the Ottoman Empire in 1915, Brussels' human rights arbiters are prompt in criticizing Turkey for denying "freedom of expression." But when three Dutch-Turkish politicians were purged from their parties' electoral lists for dissenting from the Armenian interpretation of those events, the French Parliament voted to make it a crime to do so, and Jacques Chirac, traveling to Erevan, conditioned Turkey's membership in the EU on Ankara's recognizing the Armenian "genocide." Whatever one's opinion on the events of 1915 in the now-defunct Ottoman Empire - and beyond Armenian nationalist pretensions, it is hard to see the relevance of those events for today's Turkish Republic - such attitudes suggest a persistent double-standard which, not surprisingly, is increasingly resented in Turkey. While the European attitude toward Turkey's membership is full of contradictions and hidden agendas, developments inside Turkey are not boding well for the country's integration in the EU, either. The old debate over secularism, never far from the surface, has taken on a new and increasingly open intensity. Turkish nationalism is also on the rise, lately manifested as anti-Americanism. The AKP government is more attracted to its initial Islamic roots, while the new military leadership especially Gen. Buyukanit, who took office in August, is less diplomatic than its predecessor in publicly opposing that trend. The combination of growing Turkish nationalism and anti-Americanism (a trend in Europe as well) means, in addition to complications for the U.S. position in Iraq, that the traditional U.S. support for Turkey's EU accession is both less enthusiastic and less effective. That is not necessarily a bad thing for Ankara: after all, is membership in the Brussels club good and necessary for Turkey's national interest? More and more Turks are answering that question in the negative. Public support for EU membership has dropped dramatically in the past year, from 70 percent to less than 50 percent. While for many Turks the reasons may be more emotional than objective - such pushbutton issues as the Kurdish and Armenian questions, or Cyprus, create instant resentment - there are level-headed reasons to oppose membership. First, the membership issue is directly related to issues of secularism and the role of the military; second the issue of human rights, especially Kurdish minority rights, is inseparable from terrorism. None of these are seen as being easier to cope with under the rules imposed by Brussels. In economic terms, considering the problems facing the EU in terms of economic growth, unemployment, and budgets, the likely benefits of membership for Turkey are increasingly hard to see. Indeed, when most of the EU members are already unhappy with the cost of the newly admitted Central and East European countries and the soon to be admitted Romania and Bulgaria, which ten new members combined have a smaller but richer population than Turkey, it is hard to see how much if anything at all, is left for that country, in terms of both good will and funding. Moreover, Turkey already enjoys, independent of its candidacy, some of the membership benefits in areas such as tariffs and investments. It has already implemented some of the key economic reforms required by Brussels, with good results. Perhaps German Chancellor Angela Merkel's opinion that Turkey should remain a "preferred partner" rather than member of the EU is beneficial for Turkey. It certainly is more honest than that of many of her colleagues, whose demands on Ankara are as great as their understanding and concessions are limited. You may forward this email as you like provided that you send it in its entirety attribute it to the Foreign Policy Research Institute, and include our web address (www.fpri.org). If you post it on a mailing list, please contact FPRI with the name, location, purpose, and number of recipients of the mailing list. If you receive this as a forward and would like to be placed directly on our mailing lists, send email to [email protected]. Include your name, address, and affiliation. For further information, contact Alan Luxenberg at (215) 732-3774 x105. " // text auto-reformatted; for the original see web link above. |
27 oktober 2006, 14:55 | #2 |
Berichten: n/a
|
Re: The Sins of the US regarding Turkey
From: American Hellenic Institute
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE October 26, 2006 CONTACT: Georgia Economou (202) 785-8430 No. 77/2006 Op-Ed on "The State Department's Continuing Appeasement of Turkey" Washington, DC - The following Op-Ed appeared in the October 7, 2006 issue of The National Herald, page 11 and the October 9, 2006 issue of Greek News, page 44. The State Department's Continuing Appeasement of Turkey By Gene Rossides The State Department's continuing appeasement of Turkey to the detriment of U.S. interests is best exemplified by recent statements of Matthew Bryza, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs. He assumed his present position in June 2005. Prior he was on the staff of the National Security Council (NSC) where he served from April 2001 to June 2005. On the NSC he served as Director for Europe and Eurasia, with responsibility for coordinating U.S. policy on Turkey, Greece and Cyprus, the Caucasus, Central Asia and Caspian energy. His areas of responsibility at the State Department are similar. He joined the U.S. Foreign Service in 1988. The policies he is pursuing are those set forth by former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Marc Grossman. Grossman retired in early 2005 and joined the lobbying firm, The Cohen Group, of former Secretary of Defense William Cohen. In general the pro-Turkey appeasement policies pursued by Marc Grossman have not changed, with one exception. The present Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns, sworn in on May 17, 2005, authorized a speech in June 2006 by Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Dan Fried which stated categorically that the U.S. recognized only one government in Cyprus. In a previous article I welcomed the statement by Mr. Fried because there was a feeling that the U.S. under Grossman's policies was moving towards recognizing the illegal regime in the occupied north of Cyprus. However, in that article I also questioned the State Department's desire for a settlement of the Cyprus problem because of the issues Mr. Fried did not address, such as the removal of the 35,000 Turkish occupation forces illegally in Cyprus, the 120,000 illegal Turkish settlers (in violation of the Geneva Convention of 1949) and the Turkish barbed wire fence across Cyprus. Members of the American Hellenic Institute (AHI) met with Under Secretary Burns at his initiative on April 24, 2006 to discuss the Cyprus issue and U.S. relations with Greece and Turkey. At a follow-up meeting on August 28, Mr. Burns informed us that the views we expressed in April were a key factor leading to Fried's June speech. Mr. Burns also stressed the excellent cooperation of the government of Cyprus and the tremendous efforts of the people of Cyprus in their important assistance in the evacuation of over 14,000 Americans from Lebanon. On secondary issues such as Greece, Turkey and Cyprus the views the Under Secretary for Political Affairs, the highest ranking career official, usually prevail. In our discussions with Mr. Burns we covered the topics set forth in AHI's 2006 Greek American Policy Statements endorsed by AHEPA, the Hellenic American National Council, the Cyprus Federation of America and the other major membership organizations. He stated he would get back to us. At the NSC, Matt Bryza reflected a clear pro-Turkish attitude. He supported the flawed, and indeed infamous, Annan Plan which was undemocratic, unworkable, not financially viable and which absolved and rewarded the aggressor Turkey and punished the victims the Greek Cypriots. It actually required the Greek Cypriots to pay themselves for damages caused by Turkey. The Annan Plan, as I have written before, would have, in effect, made Cyprus a protectorate of Turkey and Britain. Mr. Bryza, as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State continues, in effect, to support the Annan Plan. At a press conference on July 21, 2006 on his return from a ten day trip to Turkey, Greece and Cyprus, in response to a question on the status of the Annan Plan and whether it's off the table, he stated: "I would just repeat what I said, that the basic ideas that are - that became known as the Annan Plan reflect wisdom and hard work and a spirit of fairness, I would argue." To suggest that the "basic ideas" of "the Annan Plan reflect wisdom.and a spirit of fairness" is nonsense, is false, is misleading and an example of appeasement of Turkey. I refer Mr. Bryza to Claire Palley's book, An International Relations Debacle, on the Annan Plan negotiations and to Greg Copley's and Nick Karambelas' book reviews of Palley's book and AHI's analysis (see AHI website). Mr. Bryza did recognize the positive momentum of UN Under Secretary General Gambari's visit to Cyprus and the establishment of technical committees and agreement to exchange lists for substantive discussions. The Turkish Cypriot isolation issue Turkey has alleged that the Turkish Cypriots are isolated because of actions of the government of Cyprus. The AHI and I have repeatedly pointed out that this is false for obvious reasons, namely the Turkish government's 35,000 occupation troops illegally in Cyprus, the Turkish barbed wire fence across the face of Cyprus, the 120,000 illegal Turkish settlers/colonists from Turkey in violation of the Geneva Convention of 1949 and Turkey's apartheid policy. The Turkish Cypriot isolation is caused solely by the Turkish government's actions and not the rule of law actions of the Cyprus government. Former Under Secretary Grossman initiated the U.S. adoption of Turkey's blatantly false isolation argument. Mr. Bryza is the current State Department official voicing this erroneous view which is detrimental to the negotiation process for a fair and just settlement of the Cyprus problem. In his July 21, 2006 press conference, Bryza responded to a question from a Turkish reporter from the Anatolia News Agency asking "what does the U.S. government plan to help these people [Turkish Cypriots] end their isolation?" Mr. Bryza responded "that we have done a number of things..We are providing $30.5 million in assistance.to the Turkish Cypriot community..So we are already actively working to end the isolation of Turkish Cypriots-or to ease the isolation of Turkish Cypriots." Mr. Bryza's comments are a prime example of the State Department's continuing appeasement of Turkey. His continuing adoption of the Turkish government's argument and his failure to respond to those, including AHI, who point out the real cause of the Turkish Cypriots isolation: the Turkish army, the Turkish barbed wire fence and the illegal Turkish settlers/colonists, is rank appeasement of Turkey. Further, it is a deliberate effort to mislead the American public regarding the Cyprus problem. The opening of several crossing points in the barbed wire green line fence two years ago has led to over 10,000,000 million crossings by Turkish and Greek Cypriots without serious incident which destroys Turkey's argument that Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots cannot live and work together as they did before Turkey's apartheid policy. We are hopeful that Under Secretary Burns will have time to review these and other matters of concern to the Greek American community in the interests of the U.S. Needless appeasement Additionally it is important to point out, to stress that the appeasement of Turkey by the U.S. is not necessary. Dr. Ted Galen Carpenter, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, a leading conservative think tank in Washington, D.C., in remarks at an AHI conference on Capitol Hill commemorating the 32nd year of Turkey's invasion of Cyprus and occupation of 37.3% of Cyprus, stated the following: "The United States in many respects is a fairly unique country in that its always been a foreign policy challenge for America to reconcile its moral values and its national interests. Moral values have always been for the vast majority of Americans a very important consideration. That's one reason why Henry Kissinger's brand of Realpolitik has never played very well with the vast majority of Americans. We've seen this desire to reconcile values and interests on numerous occasions.. Just one example of the dilemma that we face, is that it is necessary for the United States to cooperate with a variety of authoritarian and at times unsavory regimes in the war against radical Islamic terrorism. It's not much of a pleasure, and it's certainly not an honor to have to work with the regime in Saudi Arabia for example or the military dictatorship of Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan but given the enemy we face it is necessary. **** But America really betrays its heritage when it needlessly compromises important moral values. Washington's policy toward the Cyprus issue is perhaps the most glaring example. The reaction to the 1974 invasion and occupation, at the very least, the U.S. stood by and watched as a NATO ally geographically raped a small neighbor. Gene Rossides, of course, makes a compelling case that Washington was even more culpable- that U.S. officials connived with Turkey in its aggression. (Emphasis in original) In the intervening 32 years, the U.S. has acted with generalized indifference as Turkey enjoyed the fruits of its aggression. Turkey brought to Cyprus tens of thousands of Turkish settlers, and Ankara's repeated defiance of rulings from the European Court on the rights of Greek Cypriot property owners despoiled by the 1974 invasion was met with anemic and pro-forma U.S. protests at Ankara's rogue behavior --when they were made at all. I am not suggesting that the U.S. should have used force to expel Turkish forces from Cyprus. America does not have a vital interest at stake in the dispute, and American military forces should be put at risk only for the defense of vital interests. But Washington could have-- and should have-- made it clear early on that a close, friendly relationship between the U.S. and Turkey would be impossible as long as Turkey persisted in its aggression. Even if U.S. leaders were reluctant to take that step as long as they believed they needed Turkey in the struggle against the Soviet Union, that justification no longer applied once the Cold War came to an end. Yet, Washington's pro-Turkish tilt on Cyprus has persisted. Washington's reaction to the rejection of the Annan Plan was very telling. U.S. officials expressed annoyance with Greek Cypriot voters for voting down that plan, despite its numerous unjust or unworkable features. Even worse was embracing the doctrine of moral equivalence between aggressor and victim. This involved placing the bulk of the blame on the victim. In essence, U.S. officials seem willing to go along with Ankara's long-standing position that the Cyprus issue is settled with the defacto division of the island-- unless a new agreement can be reached on Turkey's terms. What of the future? Washington is less fond of Ankara these days. Primarily because of differences of Iraq policy and the signs of surging radical Islamic and anti-American sentiment in Turkey. If relations between the U.S. and Turkey cool further, Washington may alter its position on the Cyprus issue to "punish" Ankara. Be watching for that development. Cyprus policy has been a stain on America's honor for 32 years. It is time--indeed it is long overdue-- to remove that stain." When is the U.S. going to take a forth right stand on the basic issues regarding Cyprus, namely Turkey's invasion and occupation; "constitutional government based on majority rule, the rule of law and protection of minority rights" as called for by former President George H.W. Bush; the immediate removal of Turkey's troops, settlers and barbed wire fence? Call and write to President Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, your two senators and your representative and ask them to stop the appeasement of Turkey and double standards applied to Turkey and to stand up for American values. ### For additional information, please contact Georgia Economou at (202) 785-8430 or at [email protected]. For general information about the activities of AHI, please see our website at http://www.ahiworld.org __________________________________________________ ______________________________________ Changed Email Address Please let us know when your email address changes so we can update our records. For your convenience you can log on to http://ahiworld.org/contact_change.html on our website to change your address, phone or email address. -- OXI ! NO ! to the Annan Plan http://www.oxi-no.org/ |
27 oktober 2006, 15:45 | #3 |
Berichten: n/a
|
Greeks and Armenians manipulating American politics
Nobody believes the propaganda of the Diaspora Greeks in America.
It's much like the propaganda of the Armenian lie lobbyists in America. One day the U.S. finally will wake up from this nightmare and see what these Greek and Armenian vultures in America are really doing to the American politics... JUST A HINT: exactly these two groups, Greeks and Armenians, have worked decades long for the fall of the giant Ottoman Empire from inside out. And they will cause also the fall of the United States! They are working from inside-out! Infltration into the highest political decision centers and negatively influencing U.S. decision makers! These vampires have their bloody teeth everywhere in the American politics! The U.S. needs to shake off these Greek and Armenian vultures in American politics, and clean up itself... |