Cyprus-Forum.com

[CopperLine]

Piratis,

1) When Turkey invaded Cyprus and there was the prospect of war between Turkey and Greece, NATO was neutral because both countries were part of the alliance. We don't want that to happen with the case of EU.

I don't understand your argument here. Are you saying that Turkey - whatever its political colour, whatever it leadership - still has further territorial ambitions in Cyprus ? (As it I don't but the argument that NATO was neutral because both countries were members of the alliance', but that's a side issue)

2) With Turkey in EU, Turkey will have an easier way to excuse her illegal settlers in Cyprus

Since a pre-condition of EU membership is resolution of the CYprus problem, including the question of settlers, your argument here can't be an objection.

3) Turkey would become richer and more stable.

How is it that the argument for all other countries' accession has been that it would make them richer and more stable, whereas for Turkey alone you argue the opposite ?

The only hope that we have to liberate Cyprus is if Turkey becomes so unstable and unpredicted that will force the great powers to take measures of reducing her powers, e.g. by splitting Turkey up

This is not just pie in the sky nonsense, it is manifestly dangerous and destabilising not just for Cyprus but for the entire region and beyond. We're not playing toy soldiers here !

4) For all the other reasons that the majorities of all other European people do not want Turkey in EU.

Which are what ? How do you calculate 'a majority' ? I'd have thought a more serious problem is that the tide of public opinion in Turkey has turned against EU membership.

How exactly do you think that Cyprus will be liberated if Turkey enters the EU? They will make this as a gift to us?

I'm sorry Piratis, but that is just silly.

The history of the EU itself and EU enlargement has been one of acceding member states negotiating 'away' some powers and characteristics which were once held to be sacrosanct and never to be given away. We live, we learn. Instead of killing each other at every twist and turn of modern European history, the EU broadly speaking has managed to ensure peacable relations amongst its onetime mortal enemies. The idea is that such a logic and such a history could and should embrace Turkey, which has always been central to the history of Europe and the idea of Europe, as well.

[Piratis]

I don't understand your argument here. Are you saying that Turkey - whatever its political colour, whatever it leadership - still has further territorial ambitions in Cyprus ? (As it I don't but the argument that NATO was neutral because both countries were members of the alliance', but that's a side issue)

NATO would not (at least openly) take sides in a war between Greece and Turkey, because both countries are members. Do you disagree with this?

We don't want to neutralize EU as well, and in the future a stronger EU could have more important role to play.

Since a pre-condition of EU membership is resolution of the CYprus problem, including the question of settlers, your argument here can't be an objection.

If what you are saying is that Turkey can enter the EU after she stops the illegalities against Cyprus, then I agree with you. I was under the impression that what you supported is that we should allow Turkey to enter the EU before that happens.

How is it that the argument for all other countries' accession has been that it would make them richer and more stable, whereas for Turkey alone you argue the opposite ?

How did I argue the opposite? If Turkey enters the EU it will become richer and more stable.

This is not just pie in the sky nonsense, it is manifestly dangerous and destabilising not just for Cyprus but for the entire region and beyond. We're not playing toy soldiers here !

Turkey is our enemy. When the USA was slicing up the USSR and Yugoslavia I don't think they cared about anything else than their own interests. Similarly we have to act and use the little influence that we have in order to push things in the direction that serves our own interests, which are nothing more than the liberation of our country from the foreign occupation.

The region is already unstable by the way. A powerful Turkey that can feel free to invade Cyprus, Iraq, Syria etc and violate the airspace of Greece on a daily basis is not something that helps with the stability of the region. Splitting Turkey up would create a much more stable environment, and it would be better for many others, not just Cypriots.

Which are what ? How do you calculate 'a majority' ? I'd have thought a more serious problem is that the tide of public opinion in Turkey has turned against EU membership.

Public opinion polls in almost all EU countries show that they are against the Turkish accession.

'm sorry Piratis, but that is just silly.

The history of the EU itself and EU enlargement has been one of acceding member states negotiating 'away' some powers and characteristics which were once held to be sacrosanct and never to be given away. We live, we learn. Instead of killing each other at every twist and turn of modern European history, the EU broadly speaking has managed to ensure peacable relations amongst its onetime mortal enemies. The idea is that such a logic and such a history could and should embrace Turkey, which has always been central to the history of Europe and the idea of Europe, as well.

The negotiations between Turkey and EU started because Turkey agreed (and signed) specific things in regards to Cyprus. Have they done anything of that? The answer is no. Turks just want to take, and not to give anything.

Do not expect the support of Cyprus to the Turkish EU accession without the Turks making the steps that they are obligated to do regarding Cyprus.

[joe]

Greatest riddle of all time--
So you have Turkish troops in Cyprus but would like to remove them now or in a future "solution" to the Cyprus issue. The government you will be negotiating with will be that of Turkish PM Erdogan. The Turks have overwhelmingly voted for Erdogan yet the Turkish military says NO to Erdogan's choice for the Presidency, delivering a slap to Turkish democracy. It is obvious that the Turkish military has no qualms pushing its wait around and intervening directly in Turkish politics. So, how are you going to implement any agreement on a Turkish troop withdrawal if the Turkish Military ( "Guardians of the Republic" who hold the real power)do not wish to withdraw a single soldier from Cyprus?
________________________________________________


Military eyes presidential elections

EVREN DEGER The New Anatolian / Ankara
04 August 2007

http://www.thenewanatolian.com/tna-28080.html

The military has once again set its sights on the elections of the new president now that the parliamentary elections are over and the Justice and Development (AK) Party has won with a landslide.

The military opposed the election of an AK Party member with religious roots as president and went as far as to issue an ultimatum to the government on April 27. There were even claims that the military was behind the anti-government rallies.

The AK Party candidate Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul faced obstructions both in the Parliament and in the judiciary and was forced to give up his quest to be elected head of state.

This triggered a political crisis that forced the government to call for early election for July 22.

AK Party claimed Gul was the victim of an unjust campaign and used this effectively in its election campaign. AK Party won 46.6 percent of the votes and won an unprecedented landslide victory.

Observers said the voters had rebuffed the military and its warnings. They also said it was the military threats against the government that triggered the unusual support for the AK Party.

Chief of Staff General Yasar Buyukanit begged to differ. He said he did not agree with the analysis that the views of the military aired during the presidential elections had boosted the AK Party.

He also said the military did not change its mind about the presidential elections and the new president should be a person who really believes in the secular principles of the Republic in the heart and not just in words.

After the military memorandum Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Chief of staff Gen. Buyukanit met in Istanbul prompting gossip in the Ankara political circles that they had made a ceasefire provided that the AK Party would not push for the election of a president with Islamic roots and a head of state whose wife wore a headscarf.

According to these circles Buyukanit had allegedly informed Erdogan about the red lines of the military. In return Erdogan had promised to keep in mind the sensitivities of the Armed Forces.The contents of the meeting have remained a well kept secret until now. Prime Minister Erdogan told an interview during the elections campaign that the military memorandum had hurt the economic boom.

However, Erdogan and Gul played the "victims" of the military and the secularists throughout the campaign.

Once the elections were over and the AK Party won a resounding victory the party decided that the nation approved its candidate Gul for the presidency as the party based its elections campaign on this.

The military reportedly felt the AK Party would win in the elections but with a 35 percent majority and not the huge 47 that AK Party scored. The relatively low majority would push AK Party to make major concessions and seek compromise on who the next president would be. But the huge victory once again turned the attention of the military to the presidential elections.

Now Ankara political circles are asking "with the massive elections gain for the AK Party will be Erdogan-Buyukanit ceasefire end?"

There is talk that once it becomes apparent that the wife of the president will wear a headscarf then the presidency will again be the center of tension between the government and the Armed Forces. Even the routine meetings between the chief of staff and the president may always be the center of attention. The attitude of the senior military officials during the receptions at the presidential palace and how they react to the wife of the head of state will be closely monitored by the media.

The military officials reportedly feel Turkey should not go through such tensions and hope the AK Party will not push for the election of a person whose wife wears a headscarf. But AK Party feels it has a mandate from the people and the military also has to respect the will of the nation.

[pantheman]

Just who payes the wages for these military people? Who is in charge the general or the PM?

Sounds strange that the PM can't order the arrest of general Yasar Buyukanit . for treason. Going against the government.

My biggest worry in all this, is no one can control turkey, seems not even its own democratically elected government. What chance will the EU have?

But hey, thats the mentality the the poor RoC is facing everyday.

[Chimera]

Eureka, I think I have it

Maybe the game Turkey is playing is Good cop....Bad cop. That way they have every avenue covered. One lot look after the Islamists, the other lot
claim to protect Turkey.

Just a hypothesis: but maybe there is a THIRD party whose existance is secret..and THEY make the real decisions....THEY control the puppet strings of the Turkish Army, AND the elected government.

Turkey didn't get where it is today by playing by the rules.