That's what Mr. Bush said in the NATO summit.

From financial times...
http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1087373296870&p=1012571727088

There are many raesons why Bush is backing up Turkiye for the EU. Why do you think is he doing that?

1) to stick it to Chirach
2) to show how Muslim-friendly he is ("EU is not an exclusive club for one religion only" <-- LOL)
3) because maybe the Turkish gov't has improved its human rights, economy, etc. record and it's time for it to join in

I don’t support the Turks getting in on the EU; I don’t see why Europe should accept a culture that is uniquely not European. Turkey has really been the “great pretender” for the last couple of decades, and it’s not fooling anyone when it comes to the Kurds. Turkey can become an associate member, but not a full fledged member. I am being ethnocentric, and I make no bones about it. Also to expand in a region with so many people, who are mostly poor would drain the EU, Turkey would suck too much out of an already burdened EU with the expansion into the East. So let Turkey be a bridge but not part of the mainland.

Bush backs Turkey because it's a democracy in name only. As a dictatorship he can better influence it, and thereby gain influence in the EU if Turkey is admitted to the EU.

Consider:

From here (http://www.theglobalist.com/DBweb/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=3960):
In the aftermath of the conflict in Iraq, the U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz flew to Ankara to chide the Turkish generals for not intervening more forcefully to overturn the decision of the Turkish Parliament that Turkish troops should not be sent to Iraq.

The Turkish military is separate from the Turkish government. It does not fall under a branch of the government that is in balance with other branches, like how the US military falls under the executive branch that is in balance with the judicial and legislative branches. The Turkish military can overrule parliament at any time. That makes Turkey a military dictatorship. Bush leverages dictatorship to achieve his ends at the expense of most of us.

Yes a strong military is a basic tenant of Kemalism, the retainment of secularism at any cost, and westernization. Turkey is incompatible with the EU in almost every way. Turkey is innately unstable, and has a history of military dictatorships.

It is innately unstable because it is a military dictatorship.

good points about the military dictatorship thing

but the EU has told Turkey that they must liberalize if they want to be admited
they have began to broadcast TV shows in Kurdish (something completely taboo only a few months ago), and the army has taken lesser role in the civilian life

EU's biggest demand is that the army take almost no role in civilian life
if that condition is met and the Turkish gov't system is adjusted, then i see no reason why it can't be admitted

so what if it's poor? East European countries weren't doing that great either only a decade ago - and some even now

and there's no such thing as "European culture"
German and Spanish cultures are very distinct. and if tell a Frenchman he's behaving like an Englishman, he'll kick your ass

Turkey maybe a poor country (is it the poorest in Europe though?) but it has a huge market with a big potential

adding Turkey is also very good politically. there will not be this strict segregation of "EU for 'white' countries", "APAC for asians", and "OIC for Muslims"
there will be a bigger mix which will bring the world closer together.

another thing, having Turkey in the EU will mean more leverage on and credibility of EU with Islamic countries

only positive can come out of it

so what if it's poor? East European countries weren't doing that great either only a decade ago - and some even now

But there is a significant difference, the difference being that those Eastern European states were already at an acceptable level of social and cultural development, really the only real hurdle was economic. Turkey is way too backward to be admitted, surely it has nice cities like Istanbul, but the reality beyond the lights of those cities is a different Turkey. Turkey is poor, very poor, and very politically unstable and would suck way too much out of the EU coffers. I don’t see what good accepting Turkey would do for the EU. Notice that I said that accepting Turkey in a preferential economic co-operation is acceptable but not full acceptance.

and there's no such thing as "European culture"

says it all (http://198.62.75.1/www1/apparitions/http:/jesus.gif)

Turkey maybe a poor country (is it the poorest in Europe though?) but it has a huge market with a big potential

In terms of GDP per capita I believe it is the poorest of all states in the EU. The goal of the EU to bring all states up to GDP levels with that of the Western European average. That will bankrupt the EU in Turkey, so really Brussels and Ankara should just forget it.

adding Turkey is also very good politically. there will not be this strict segregation of "EU for 'white' countries", "APAC for asians", and "OIC for Muslims"
there will be a bigger mix which will bring the world closer together.

That would hold water if Europe’s white population wasn’t declining, that is another reason for no.

another thing, having Turkey in the EU will mean more leverage on and credibility of EU with Islamic countries

Or the Islamic people will consider Turkey even more traitorous then before, being perceived as a whore to western interests. So don’t jump on the bandwagon so quickly.

those Eastern European states were already at an acceptable level of social and cultural development
"cultural" development? what does that mean
and "social" development, i'll say the same - if Turkey reforms further and achieve the same "social level" then why not? East European countries were communist dictatorships only 15 years ago. look at them now. Turkey can "socially develop" too

In terms of GDP per capita I believe it is the poorest of all states in the EU.
is this the only or even the appropriate measuring device?
what about the purchasing power parity? or total GDP?

another thing, having Turkey in the EU will mean more leverage on and credibility of EU with Islamic countries
------------------
Or the Islamic people will consider Turkey even more traitorous then before, being perceived as a whore to western interests.

it could be both.
but i think more the 1st option. Islamic countries will see a EU-with-Turkey as an opportunity to advance their interests. this would mean closer contacts, and a better relationship.
considering the reforms taking place in the ME there will be more liberal thinking rather than "Turkey is a whore"

Arab countries are on their way to becoming powerful economic entities. they need a big market to export their stuff, no? Turkey would be a good representative of Muslim countries' interests

That would hold water if Europe’s white population wasn’t declining
France is still predominantly white and "Christian"
Germany is still predominantly white and "Christian"
Italy is still predominantly white and "Christian"
even with large developing non-white non-Christian minorities
Turkey is predominantly Turk and Muslim however. so having it in the EU would be a beginning of "mixing"

it would be the ultimate bridge

Verheugen on Turkey: the question is when, not if...


In his opening address, Enlargement Commissioner Günter Verheugen reiterated that Turkey enjoys full candidate status for EU membership, and said that the issue was "not whether Turkey can be a member of the EU, but whether and when negotiations on the accession of Turkey can begin". He said that one key requirement is for Turkey to implement the reforms in a "credible and sustainable" manner. When drafting its scheduled October report and recommendation, he said the Commission "will be looking at both the quantitative and the qualitative aspects, using the same criteria and methodology that so successfully has been used for all the other candidate countries", stressing that "there are clear positive signs in this respect". On the flipside, however, he added that Turkey continues to jail people who express non-violent opinion, that human rights defenders are still subject to harassment and that the "situation of women is still far from satisfactory". He also emphasised that the eventual launch of accession negotiations will be accompanied by close monitoring of the reforms' progress, just as happened in all other candidate states.

Matthias Ruete, Director for Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey at DG Enlargement, said that "the closer we get to the [December] date, the less we would say". However, he revealed that the Commission's regular report on Turkey due out in early October will this year cover the past five years since 1999. He also said that "points of friction still exist" between the EU and Turkey, "mainly over economic issues".

Recalling that Ankara signed its Association Agreement with the EU 40 years ago, Turkey's Minister of State for Foreign Trade Kürsat Tüzmen said that "we cannot be at the same place after 40 years. We should give a name to this relationship."

Bahadir Kaleagasi, Turkey's permanent representative to the EU and UNICE, said that Turkey should and would become an asset for the Union. He said that the anti-Turkey arguments voiced across Europe these days are based on an assessment of the country's current status. However, he said that Turkey is steadily progressing and that "tomorrow's Turkey" will join the EU.

Konrad Reuss, managing director of Standard and Poor's Sovereign Ratings Group, recalled Turkey's positive economic indicators but warned that the country remains heavily reliant on investor confidence and that Turkey's refinancing needs remain high. Accordingly, he said that the Turkish government should "continue to deliver to keep confidence alive".

Outlining his self-styled "euro-lucid" approach, Nicolas-Jean Brehon, Professor of Public Finance at Sorbonne and advisor to the French Senate, said that Turkey's eventual entry in the EU is estimated to carry a 10-15 billion euro annual price tag up until 2015. He also argued that the EU's Constitution is very likely to need rewriting upon Turkey's entry, and that all potential further enlargements should be openly discussed today.

In his closing keynote address, the UK's Minister for Europe Denis MacShane said that while it is now time for the EU "to stop being patronising towards Turkey", the Turks themselves "should not ask what the EU can do for them, but what the Turks can do for Turkey". He shared the view of several other speakers that Turkey's candidacy should be judged through the country's adoption of the acquis and through its meeting the Copenhagen criteria.

Published online on : 18 June 2004 on friendsofeurope.org

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

I really like the economist magazine and here is the December cover of the economist magazine

http://www.economist.com/printedition/cover_index.cfm?year=2002&quarter=4

One should also keep in mind that Romania and Bulgaria are joining in 2007. These countries were under the Ottoman rule for years. Today's Greece is not Socrates' Greece anymore. Today's Greek people are mixed Turkish people and Turkish people are mixed Greek people. Saying that Turkiye doesnt belong in Europe does not make much sense. Once upon a time the Ottoman Empire was called the sick man of Europe and Turks always had a part in the European history.

Economicaly, the acceptance of Turkiye is going to cost EU as much as the new 10 members. Well, if you compare the populations then this is very normal. If you want a very detailed economic analyses of the enlargement and acceptance of Turkiye then please read the newly published study by Kirsty Hughes from London School of Economics. Then you ll have actually a little bit of knowledge about the issue and can formulate your own thoughts.

You can download the study from www.friendsofeurope.org

good points about the military dictatorship thing

but the EU has told Turkey that they must liberalize if they want to be admited

The EU should tell them that they must become a true democracy if they want to be admitted (I won't hold my breath). In some important ways a nominal democracy is worse than a blatant dictatorship. For one, people worldwide are more easily fooled into thinking that, hypothetically say, Turkey made a democratic decision (that is, one by the public or its freely-choosing representatives) when really Bush coerced or bribed its military leader into forcing Turkey's parliament to make that decision.

In Jan-Feb 2003 some 90% of Turks were against helping Bush in Iraq. Bush kept upping the ante (bribe). At $26 billion there was intense pressure for the Turkish parliament to relent, not because that would be good for Turks but because Turkey's true rulers in the military stood to gain a lot. The EU shouldn't stand for that kind of member.

I guess that we are all going to work from the assumption that Western European countries don't have a history of instability and military dictatorships. I will refrain from pointing out obvious examples, as all of you seem familiar with how to use Google.

my point exactly, pourriture

and welcome to sciforums

all European countries
1) have been dictatorships or unstable in the past
2) were poor or socialist in one point or another
3) are different from each other

so what's so different about Turkey, besides the fact that it's a "Muslim country"?
as i said before, having Turkey in the EU would be much more beneficial than have any other poor, 'socially underdeveloped' country because of its special ability to advance EU interests

Agreed of course Otheadp

My thoughts are directed primarily to western euorpe though. Franco joined the choir invisible in 1975 and De Gaulle in 1970 (say what you like about de Gaulle ... I say cult of personality) and Ireland isn't exactly the model of stability now. As far as the EU and Turkey goes .... hey they let Portugal in SO WHY NOT??? :)

As a side note, look at this link http://www.economist.com/countries/usa/profile.cfm?folder=Profile-Economic%20Data
to change the country just change the "usa" in the url to the country of your choice. It intrigued me to note that most of the western european countries that I looked at (Italy, Spain, France, Belgium etc etc etc) are suffering from RAPID decrease in the rate of growth in GDP (Greece being a notable exception) since the inception of the EU. Oddly the Eastern European members seem to be experiencing an increase in the rate of GDP growth. This seems to indicate that the EU is turning out to be a massive redistribution scheme. It would be interesting to compile all these numbers and calculate the overall change in GDP for the group. Alas I have had one too many beers to do this tonight ..... but I think that when I do it tomorrow I will find that the EU is a net loser.

so what's so different about Turkey, besides the fact that it's a "Muslim country"?

It's a dictatorship now. Dictators should not be legitimized with business or respect. In an ideal world.

"cultural" development? what does that mean
and "social" development,

Are you really this annoying stupid? I mean really oth, are you just trying to sound smart? Obviously to European standards of cultural and social development Turkey lacks. You aren’t European so you wouldn’t understand (no Russia is not European). It is a common linkage of religion, cultural exchanges, and history. Czech Republic is considered to be Western European in its culture, and social structure meanwhile Moldova is not. Really anything past the Elbe River is considered to be underdeveloped by European standards. Is it subjective, you better believe it! But one thing is for sure that Turkey is in no way “European” in cultural, social, historical or economic spheres.

if Turkey reforms further and achieve the same "social level" then why not?

Because their social development is not the levels of which the EU should accept. Most Turks are employed in Agricultural. No where in Eastern Europe did that hold true under the Stalinist dictatorships. I think we give a bad rap to the “communist” era in the East, they were bad at economic policy but at least socially they were rather benevolent. It would take too long, too expensive, and Turkey is not going to conform to the edicts of Brussels. Then we have Greece…


is this the only or even the appropriate measuring device?

The best we have, also if we were to use the UN’s HDI figures Turkey’s position is way too low. It’s #96! That’s below Ukraine, its HDI figure is a mere 0.734. That is depressingly low for a state that wants to enter into the EU. All states that been accepted into the EU are well developed states according to the UN, Turkey is obviously not. Let Turkey develop on its own with a trade agreement with the EU, then when the time comes we will see.

what about the purchasing power parity? or total GDP?

What do you think GDP per capita means? Total GDP is irrelevant, if we are to use that then Iran should be in the EU, red herring.

but i think more the 1st option. Islamic countries will see a EU-with-Turkey as an opportunity to advance their interests. this would mean closer contacts, and a better relationship.
considering the reforms taking place in the ME there will be more liberal thinking rather than "Turkey is a whore"

Turkey is already considered a whore anyways, not only for being in NATO, not only for being an ally of Israel, but then joining in the EU would be the ultimate blow. Also the West would be endorsing a pseudo-democracy with a more powerful military. Turkey is too backward, and one thing for sure she will not be given the ability to allow Turks to settle just anywhere in Europe.

Arab countries are on their way to becoming powerful economic entities. they need a big market to export their stuff, no? Turkey would be a good representative of Muslim countries' interests

Since when did you care about “Arab countries”? Anyways, Turkey doesn’t want competition from other states, that’s not the point. You join the EU for your own self-interests. Turkey is not even Arabic so she really could care less.

Turkey is predominantly Turk and Muslim however. so having it in the EU would be a beginning of "mixing"

Ask Vienna about that! No one wants that to happen. No one wants Turkish immigration; you must understand Europeans are extremely racist. No one wants Turks in the union, and especially Muslims. Is that right? No, but Europeans could really care less.