Cyprus-Forum.com

[tsukoui]

July 16, 2011
Most analysts say the Alliance continues to be vital for Turkey’s national security. Can they convince an increasingly restive public?
by Anna Wood

ISTANBUL — Over the past decade, as Turkey’s prominence on the world stage has increased, its role in global alliances has shifted dramatically. The recently re-elected AKP administration has carved out a new space for the country to express its own views on international matters, even when those views clash with those of their allies.

Public opinion has followed suit, with polls registering increased skepticsm regarding NATO and the EU.

A report compiled by researchers at Istanbul’s Bahcesehir University earlier this year found that only 41% of those surveyed regarded NATO membership as essential for national security. By contrast, 67% held that view in 2004.

“It can be observed that compared to the people of the other countries, Turks were the most skeptical of NATO’s essentialness,” the researchers said.

A 2010 study conducted by Transatlantic Trends reveals similar findings: “Compared to last year, Turks were less convinced that NATO is essential, less interested in joining the EU, and less likely to say their country shares values with the West.”

Mustafa Kemal, a taxi driver in Istanbul whose parents named him after the founder of Turkey, holds a view shared by a considerable segment of the Turkish public. “They’re exploiting us,” he said. “Turkey is a strong country, but it is being managed by other countries.”

Policymakers and the country’s military take a different view, however. They continue to see NATO and relations with the EU as crucial for the country’s interests.

“Going it alone is not an option,” warns US-Turkey relations expert Mustafa Aydin. Turkey’s increasing global prominence, he said, means it has to play by the rules and accept burdens.

At the same time, he added, it is time for all sides to adjust their perceptions and expectations. “The US needs to make room for Turkey’s growing power and shouldn’t see it as a challenge,” Aydin said at a June Middle East Institute conference on Turkey in Washington.

For many Turks, views of the Alliance and of the United States are intertwined, according to SOAS Professor Emeritus William Hale.

“Attitudes towards NATO are probably mainly determined by Turkish attitudes towards the United States, which have been at rock-bottom since the invasion of Iraq,” he told SETimes.

In general, analysts say, Turkish policymakers face the challenge of persuading the public – many of whom grew up after the Cold War ended — of the Alliance’s importance to Turkey.

“In a world with two poles, NATO membership was a symbol of belonging to the Atlantic side,” said Professor Basak Zeynep Alpan of Middle East Technical University in Ankara. “In the wake of the Cold War, in a multi-polar world, it became relevant only on definite and specific topics, and this of course is reflected in the public’s perception.”

Convincing Kemal, the Istanbul driver, will be no easy task. “Today’s treaties were signed forty years ago. They aren’t appropriate for the current generation,” he told SETimes.

[Sotos]

The one who will leave first will be the USA ... everyone else will follow in other words nobody will dare to leave unless the US decides that there is no need for this organization anymore.

[tsukoui]

Greece left NATO in 1974...

[Lit]

Washington, DC - A bipartisan group of Senators joined in writing President Obama, before his scheduled meeting Tuesday with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan, to send a clear signal of opposition to recent Turkish policy.

A copy of the letter is below:


September 19, 2011

The President

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW

Washington, DC 20500



Dear Mr. President:

We write with concern regarding the Turkish Government’s recent foreign policy decisions that call into question its commitment to the NATO alliance, threaten regional stability and undermine U.S. interests.

Prime Minister Erdogan recently moved away from standing with U.S. and NATO relationships and policies, now seeking to confront our allies in Israel while developing closer relations with Iran, and other anti-western proxies.

For decades, the Turkish-Israeli relationship served as a pillar of stability. In 1949, Turkey became the first Muslim-majority country to recognize the State of Israel and in 2000, became the first to sign a free trade agreement with Israel. The Turkish-Israeli partnership included everything from military cooperation to tourism, significantly strengthening U.S.-Turkish relations.

We watch with growing alarm as Prime Minister Erdogan hastily ended a half-century of Turkish-Israeli cooperation, moving to open confrontation with Israel. Recently, Turkey:

· Expelled the Israeli ambassador,

· Recalled its ambassador to Israel,

· Cancelled all bilateral defense ties,

· Cancelled NATO’s Anatolian Eagle air defense exercise (which Israel has participated in since 2001),

· Previously invited Syria to join military exercises,

· Invited Chinese military planes to replace U.S. and Israeli aircraft at exercises, and

· Banned Israeli aircraft from Turkish airspace.

In light of these developments, we ask you send a strong message to Turkey that United States is fully committed to the security of the State of Israel.

We understand that on September 2, 2011 — the same day that Turkey severed virtually all ties with Israel – Turkey also accepted the U.S. offer to host a key missile defense X-band radar (AN/TPY-2) as part of Phase I of the European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA). We further understand that senior Turkish officials demand that no data collected from any U.S. X-Band radar in Turkey be made available for the defense of Israel. We ask for your Administration’s written assurances that the data collected by any Turkish-based, U.S. X-Band radar would be shared in real-time with the State of Israel, a major non-NATO U.S. ally, in order to strengthen her defenses against a potential ballistic missile attack from Iran.

Mr. President, it appears that Turkey is shifting to a policy of confrontation, if not hostility, towards our allies in Israel and we urge you to mount a diplomatic offensive to reverse this course.

We ask you to outline Turkey’s eroding support in Congress with Prime Minister Erdogan at the earliest opportunity and how its currentill-advised policy toward the State of Israel will also negatively reflect on U.S.-Turkish relations and Turkey’s role in the future of NATO.

[CBBB]

Washington, DC - A bipartisan group of Senators joined in writing President Obama, before his scheduled meeting Tuesday with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan, to send a clear signal of opposition to recent Turkish policy.

A copy of the letter is below:


September 19, 2011

The President

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW

Washington, DC 20500



Dear Mr. President:

We write with concern regarding the Turkish Government’s recent foreign policy decisions that call into question its commitment to the NATO alliance, threaten regional stability and undermine U.S. interests.

Prime Minister Erdogan recently moved away from standing with U.S. and NATO relationships and policies, now seeking to confront our allies in Israel while developing closer relations with Iran, and other anti-western proxies.

For decades, the Turkish-Israeli relationship served as a pillar of stability. In 1949, Turkey became the first Muslim-majority country to recognize the State of Israel and in 2000, became the first to sign a free trade agreement with Israel. The Turkish-Israeli partnership included everything from military cooperation to tourism, significantly strengthening U.S.-Turkish relations.

We watch with growing alarm as Prime Minister Erdogan hastily ended a half-century of Turkish-Israeli cooperation, moving to open confrontation with Israel. Recently, Turkey:

· Expelled the Israeli ambassador,

· Recalled its ambassador to Israel,

· Cancelled all bilateral defense ties,

· Cancelled NATO’s Anatolian Eagle air defense exercise (which Israel has participated in since 2001),

· Previously invited Syria to join military exercises,

· Invited Chinese military planes to replace U.S. and Israeli aircraft at exercises, and

· Banned Israeli aircraft from Turkish airspace.

In light of these developments, we ask you send a strong message to Turkey that United States is fully committed to the security of the State of Israel.

We understand that on September 2, 2011 — the same day that Turkey severed virtually all ties with Israel – Turkey also accepted the U.S. offer to host a key missile defense X-band radar (AN/TPY-2) as part of Phase I of the European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA). We further understand that senior Turkish officials demand that no data collected from any U.S. X-Band radar in Turkey be made available for the defense of Israel. We ask for your Administration’s written assurances that the data collected by any Turkish-based, U.S. X-Band radar would be shared in real-time with the State of Israel, a major non-NATO U.S. ally, in order to strengthen her defenses against a potential ballistic missile attack from Iran.

Mr. President, it appears that Turkey is shifting to a policy of confrontation, if not hostility, towards our allies in Israel and we urge you to mount a diplomatic offensive to reverse this course.

We ask you to outline Turkey’s eroding support in Congress with Prime Minister Erdogan at the earliest opportunity and how its currentill-advised policy toward the State of Israel will also negatively reflect on U.S.-Turkish relations and Turkey’s role in the future of NATO.

Interesting, but who were the signatories?

[Lit]

Interesting, but who were the signatories?

The letter cosigned by seven senators included Mark Kirk (R-IL), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Mark Warner (D-VA), Joe Manchin (D-WV), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and Scott Brown (R-MA)

[kurupetos]

Interesting, but who were the signatories?

The letter cosigned by seven senators included Mark Kirk (R-IL), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Mark Warner (D-VA), Joe Manchin (D-WV), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and Scott Brown (R-MA)

Can anyone guess Chuck's & Joseph's ethnic background?

[Hermes]

Who will leave first? My money's on Turkey...

Netherlands party challenges Turkey’s NATO membership

The Dutch Freedom Party, the Netherlands’s third largest political party, urged the Foreign Affairs and Defense Ministries last week to reconsider Turkey’s continued membership in NATO.

Geert Wilders, head of the party, and its Mideast expert, deputy Wim Kortenoeven, accused Turkey of abandoning its allies – Israel earlier this year, and now France.

Turkey severed diplomatic and military ties with France last week, over the French parliamentary resolution on the current Turkish government’s reaction to the Ottoman Empire’s massacre of Christian Armenians in 1915. The empire preceded the modern secular Turkish state founded in 1923, and the French deemed the state’s denial that these events represented genocide to be punishable by a monetary fine.

France is a leading member of the NATO military alliance, as is Holland.

http://www.jpost.com/International/Arti ... ?id=250933

[Get Real!]

Who will leave NATO first: Greece or Turkey?

You mean “who would” not “who will” as neither have expressed such a desire.

But anyway, it’s a pointless thread based on fantasy and it would make negligible difference to NATO with or without these two losers.

[EPSILON]

July 16, 2011
Most analysts say the Alliance continues to be vital for Turkey’s national security. Can they convince an increasingly restive public?
by Anna Wood

ISTANBUL — Over the past decade, as Turkey’s prominence on the world stage has increased, its role in global alliances has shifted dramatically. The recently re-elected AKP administration has carved out a new space for the country to express its own views on international matters, even when those views clash with those of their allies.

Public opinion has followed suit, with polls registering increased skepticsm regarding NATO and the EU.

A report compiled by researchers at Istanbul’s Bahcesehir University earlier this year found that only 41% of those surveyed regarded NATO membership as essential for national security. By contrast, 67% held that view in 2004.

“It can be observed that compared to the people of the other countries, Turks were the most skeptical of NATO’s essentialness,” the researchers said.

A 2010 study conducted by Transatlantic Trends reveals similar findings: “Compared to last year, Turks were less convinced that NATO is essential, less interested in joining the EU, and less likely to say their country shares values with the West.”

Mustafa Kemal, a taxi driver in Istanbul whose parents named him after the founder of Turkey, holds a view shared by a considerable segment of the Turkish public. “They’re exploiting us,” he said. “Turkey is a strong country, but it is being managed by other countries.”

Policymakers and the country’s military take a different view, however. They continue to see NATO and relations with the EU as crucial for the country’s interests.

“Going it alone is not an option,” warns US-Turkey relations expert Mustafa Aydin. Turkey’s increasing global prominence, he said, means it has to play by the rules and accept burdens.

At the same time, he added, it is time for all sides to adjust their perceptions and expectations. “The US needs to make room for Turkey’s growing power and shouldn’t see it as a challenge,” Aydin said at a June Middle East Institute conference on Turkey in Washington.

For many Turks, views of the Alliance and of the United States are intertwined, according to SOAS Professor Emeritus William Hale.

“Attitudes towards NATO are probably mainly determined by Turkish attitudes towards the United States, which have been at rock-bottom since the invasion of Iraq,” he told SETimes.

In general, analysts say, Turkish policymakers face the challenge of persuading the public – many of whom grew up after the Cold War ended — of the Alliance’s importance to Turkey.

“In a world with two poles, NATO membership was a symbol of belonging to the Atlantic side,” said Professor Basak Zeynep Alpan of Middle East Technical University in Ankara. “In the wake of the Cold War, in a multi-polar world, it became relevant only on definite and specific topics, and this of course is reflected in the public’s perception.”

Convincing Kemal, the Istanbul driver, will be no easy task. “Today’s treaties were signed forty years ago. They aren’t appropriate for the current generation,” he told SETimes.

Dear All,History has a very long arm..counting thousands of years.If someone study the history carefully he/she will easily discover that history finally honor the "politically/sociality approved stategies. It seems that Turkey is following the wrong way-long time now.In short terms there were/are some "proud results" in long term history will work on its usual way-destroy states/empires/countries behaving like they are the holly points of Earth.Turkey is one of the first target of history !!!