Cyprus-Forum.com

[Khan]

Despite what you say Kifeas, the army still remains among the most respected institutions in Turkey. If it wasn't for them who knows what the country would have descended into, probably something far worse.

[akiner]

kifeas wrote:

My friend, do you know any other country that claims to be democratic and at the same time the Army has the constitutional right to intervene and overthrow or order the resignation of an elected government, claiming the right to do so in the name of national security or mere non-conformity with Atatürk’s principles? This is not just the mere interpretation and /or actions of some individuals, who happen to interpret and preach Kemalism in a wrongful way. This is an institutionalized practice that it is part of the Kemalist ideology, namely that the army serves the role of the “big brother,” the ultimate caretaker, over the lives and destiny of the Turkish people. This is why I compare and regard Kemalism as a totalitarian ideology.

Any other modern European country bases its constitution on spelled out universal principles, such as respect for democracy, justice, freedom of the individual, freedom of speech, association, religious freedom, non-discrimination, respect of people’s human rights, etc, etc. I do not know any such country that besides or instead of all those principles, it refers to the principles of one single individual; no matter how wise he was, thus allowing any ruling elite and /or bureaucracy and /or the Generals to interpret them, arbitrarily in many cases and away from any sense of people’s democratic choice. It just isn’t logical and right, as a matter of principle.

Kifeas, u dont know what u are talking about when u mentioned democracy in EU,do u?

To be honest i dont know any other DEMOCRATIC COMMUNITY which has forced someone to leave his pm seat who had been elected by votes of individuals,i am not surprised to see another double-standarts of your principles .... I think it is easy for u to remeber Haider of Austria:))... Every system has its red button to protect itself and it is nonesense starting to repeat verves from your old novel democracy, humanrights, blah,blu,zala,zulu....

I dont find a word to say about your ridiculous comments on Kemalism, you, your dear fella Birkibrisli and your european friends like it or not, that ideology will last till there will be no Turkey
Do you think turks are not capable to see the reason that lies behind the willingness of Erdoğan's government on cheating the code of Kemalism...
They have another secret agenda, a duck cant be a chicken in 5 years and an ulta islamist cant be europian reformist either

[bg_turk]

the Turks didn't say "no" because they sympathized with their muslim friends. The reason they said "no" was because they were afraid that the Kurds of north Iraq would gain power something that they didn't favor. The Turks would be more than glad if the Americans allowed them to invade north Iraq so they could eliminate the Kurds there and take over oil rich lands. (but of course the Americans wanted that oil for themselves).

The Turks said no because by a tiny majority parliament voted against the american proposal of using turkish soil to attack Iraq. The millitary correcctly evaluated that as long as the invasion is inevitable and they have no power to prevented it, it would be in the turkish national interest to participate rather than abstain since it would give them more leverage in the future dealings with Iraq, but they were prevented by doing so by parliament, which would be expected since around 90% of Turkish citizens opposed the war, as would any country oppose a war in its neighbour. Thousands of kurdish refugees had flooded turkey during the previous wars, when saddam gased Halabja, and turkey had a bitter taste from the economic disruption that the first gulf war brought, no doubt why no turk would want another war in the region.
It was never a Turkish intention to invade northern irag, excluding a few diahard nationalist with esoteric views of a greater pan-turkic state, in fact Turkey has always been a strong supporter of the terriorial integrity of Iraq for reasons you can quite easily understand - to dimish the separtist tendencies of the kurds.
The situation is much more complicated than turkey just wanting to invade northern iraq as you can see, but with your turkey-bashing tendecies your interpretation of the events should come as no surprise.

[BirKibrisli]

When you look at the big picture,what Kifeas is saying makes a lot of sense.Turkey is locked in this time warp of Kemalism,and it cannot go forward in to the EU with that mentality.The biggest contribution Ataturk made to the Republic of Turkey(after its establishment) was his mindturning reforms.He believed in the necessity of constant change and reform in all aspects of live.He would not have approved of being stuck in one mindset for the rest of history,as Kemalists are trying to do.I will go as far as to say that Kemalism will be the end of Turkey as we know it.Because it keeps the country and its people squeezed in between two or even three incompatible idealogies:democracy,nationalism,and Islamism.Turkey is like a ringfighter with her hands tied behind her back,and one leg chained to the floor.At a time when vision, flexibility,courage and moral fortitute and a sense of global justice is called for,Turkey is frozen in an ideology that was right for its time,but has since outlived its usefulness.
If Ataturk came back and saw the goings on today,a lot of people would have to look for somewhere to hide to escape his wrath.

[Khan]

When you look at the big picture,what Kifeas is saying makes a lot of sense.Turkey is locked in this time warp of Kemalism,and it cannot go forward in to the EU with that mentality.The biggest contribution Ataturk made to the Republic of Turkey(after its establishment) was his mindturning reforms.He believed in the necessity of constant change and reform in all aspects of live.He would not have approved of being stuck in one mindset for the rest of history,as Kemalists are trying to do.I will go as far as to say that Kemalism will be the end of Turkey as we know it.Because it keeps the country and its people squeezed in between two or even three incompatible idealogies:democracy,nationalism,and Islamism.Turkey is like a ringfighter with her hands tied behind her back,and one leg chained to the floor.At a time when vision, flexibility,courage and moral fortitute and a sense of global justice is called for,Turkey is frozen in an ideology that was right for its time,but has since outlived its usefulness.
If Ataturk came back and saw the goings on today,a lot of people would have to look for somewhere to hide to escape his wrath.

Kemalism is what has kept Turkey together and intact since 1923. There are still factors which are trying to pull away at Turkey; Kurds, Armenians, Greeks, Arabs, Iranians. Though these countries are not outwardly hostile, if the situation were to arise i'm sure many of these nations still have territorial ambitions. I mean do you know Armenia still does not recognise the Treaty of Kars which ended their republic? They believe half of eastern Anatolia should still be theirs.

Perhaps if Turkey has not democratized as fast as other nations, it is a result of external (and internal) forces which still threaten the nation. But when all is said and done Turkey is a firmly established democracy, more so than the Eastern European nations which are still run by former communists and plagued with corruption. Also is the current AKP party not an example of Ataturks legacy, an Islamic party which is guiding the nation towards the Europe, where Ataturk always looked?

[akiner]

khan,
Let birkibrisli lives in his utopia with joy from miles and miles away...!!

where Ataturk always looked?

As we all know when he showed the direction to "muhasır medeniyet seviyesine ulşamak"-"reaching the level of modern civilization" was nothing but pointing the scientific rank that USSR had those days... You can see strict relations between Turkey-Russia in his era as a proof to that statement, but thanx to Inonu"2.nd president, first kurdish origined one" and stupid demands from Stalin, Turkey switched her side and joined the alliance she is in now...

In other words there were no action he made that honors europe or showed europe as an exemplification to modern Turkey

[BirKibrisli]

Khan,

Kemalism is what has kept Turkey together and intact since 1923. There are still factors which are trying to pull away at Turkey; Kurds, Armenians, Greeks, Arabs, Iranians. Though these countries are not outwardly hostile, if the situation were to arise i'm sure many of these nations still have territorial ambitions. I mean do you know Armenia still does not recognise the Treaty of Kars which ended their republic? They believe half of eastern Anatolia should still be theirs.

Khan gardashim,this is what I am talking about too.As long as Kemalism,which in its purest sense is equal to Turkish nationalism,is the dominating ideology the groups you named above will not be willing to make peace with Turkey.Each one will pulling in a different direction.Now that the Army is taken out of the equation (there can be no coups now if Turkey wants to join the EU) how can Kemalism stand in the way of these peoples' demands,politically I mean.I see only one solution to Turkey's problems,play down Kemalism hence Turkish nationalism,and institute truly democratic reforms to satify everyone's human rights and sense of justice.We can't get away with calling the Kurds mountain Turks any longer.Their democratic and human rights must be given.We can't keep denying that a large number of Armenians died as a result of the Ottoman's displacement policy.These people's pain and percieved injustice must be acknowledged.Turkey must make peace with her neighbours as Ataturk would wish.And that means finding a lasting solution in Cyprus too, which will satisfy the majority of Cypriots.You can't have a little bit of democracy (like you can't be a little pregnant!).We must have the courage to go all the way.At the expense of Kemalism.

[BirKibrisli]

khan,
Let birkibrisli lives in his utopia with joy from miles and miles away...!!

where Ataturk always looked?

As we all know when he showed the direction to "muhasır medeniyet seviyesine ulşamak"-"reaching the level of modern civilization" was nothing but pointing the scientific rank that USSR had those days... You can see strict relations between Turkey-Russia in his era as a proof to that statement, but thanx to Inonu"2.nd president, first kurdish origined one" and stupid demands from Stalin, Turkey switched her side and joined the alliance she is in now...

In other words there were no action he made that honors europe or showed europe as an exemplification to modern Turkey

Akiner,
I wish I could live in "My utopia with joy".But I am cursed with a mind that thinks and analyses everything,and a heart that wants fairness and justice for everyone,especialy the downtroted.
What are you implying by hinting at Inonu's ethnic origins?Do you thing he served his country less because he was a Kurd?And where do you think Turkey would be now has she not steered away from the USSR?

[Khan]

I see only one solution to Turkey's problems,play down Kemalism hence Turkish nationalism,and institute truly democratic reforms to satify everyone's human rights and sense of justice.

This is the problem Kibrisli, fully democracy is not a magic wand which solves all problems. The introduction of true to democracy to some countries leads to utter chaos, disunity and breakup - just look at Iraq. I agree with giving Kurds more rights, this i have said many times in conversations with Kurds and Turks alike. But i do not agree that nationalism and the role of the army in Turkey is necessarily a bad thing. Nationalism gives a strong sense of self-identification which keeps a country strong and together.

Look at the Arab countries, they do not have a strong sense of self-identification to unite into a solid Arab block. They remain fractured among dictators and Sultans whose only wish is to guard their wealth (for which they can always rely on the West who are only too happy to oblige). It is why the western powers and a small country of 7m Israelis dominates the Middle East. In Iraq, they never had a sense of Iraqi nationalism, they divided themselves into Sunnis, Shias and Kurds and this is why they could not repel an invasion, because America could used these divisions to enter the country. Everyone knows Saddam was a tyrant, but i see estimates which state upto 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died since US occupation, was the introduction of "decmocracy" there worth the lives of those people? Indeed will it ever pay off or will it descend into further chaos until it finally breaks up.

Ataturk was aware of the lack of Turkish nationalism at the end of the Ottoman Empire. It is why he reminded Turks that they were a great people even before they adopted Islam. Having been born in England and lived most of my life in the UK I am aware that the nationalism in Turkey can seem overt, but Turkey is in one of the most hostile parts of the world, internally it is threatened by Kurdish separatism and Islamic fundamentalism. Externally it surrounded by states which mostly resent it and harbour its terrorists.

In this situation a country needs a source of strength which can control all these factors. This is why i am very much for military involvement to constantly keep watch over the state, i mean, better our soldiers than American soldiers coming in right?

[sadik]

This is the problem Kibrisli, fully democracy is not a magic wand which solves all problems. The introduction of true to democracy to some countries leads to utter chaos, disunity and breakup - just look at Iraq. I agree with giving Kurds more rights, this i have said many times in conversations with Kurds and Turks alike. But i do not agree that nationalism and the role of the army in Turkey is necessarily a bad thing. Nationalism gives a strong sense of self-identification which keeps a country strong and together.

Dear Khan, if it wasn't for military interventions in 1960,70 and 80, Turkey would most probably have become a member of the EU a long time ago. We also should remember that the military encouraged Islamic groups in order to crush leftist movements in 1980s, the result of which was a diminishing left and a growing Islamic movement. In 1990s this Islamic movement got out of control and this time they moved to fight Islamic movements. Another thing is that the source of bad treatment of the Kurds is the Army itself. It's impossible to say that Kurds received a good treatment in the east, even though Kurds and Turks in general don't have problems between them. Many of the problems of the country are unsolved today because of the mentality of the army. What will keep the country together is democracy and the growing wealth of the nation. Kurds and moderate Islamists support for the EU process is for this reason.