France angry with US over Turkey/EU comments

[Sayhey]

Angry Chirac puts Bush in his place

French president publicly carpets the US leader for pressing Turkey's case for EU membership

Ian Black and Michael White in Istanbul and Giles Tremlett in Madrid
Tuesday June 29, 2004
The Guardian

Jacques Chirac bluntly told George Bush to mind his own business yesterday when the US president urged European leaders to give Turkey a firm date for starting EU membership talks later this year.

Ignoring the determined effort to celebrate improved transatlantic relations after the Iraq crisis, the French president publicly rebuked Mr Bush at Nato's Istanbul summit for calling for special treatment for the Turks.

Mr Bush, he complained, "not only went too far but went on to territory which is not his own".

He added: "It's as if I was advising the US on how they should manage their relations with Mexico...."

Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/nato/story/0,12667,1249663,00.html)

Now the question is was this purposeful in order to stir divisions between Turkey and some EU members or is this just a stupid blunder on Bush's part. My bet is on the former.

[zimv20]

well, what does the US gain from turkey joining the EU? is it important (to the US) to have a muslim country be part of the EU? maybe they reckon it would limit any military response turkey might have to some kind of kurdish uprising.

it would also give the EU a border w/ iraq. hmmm....

[IJ Reilly]

well, what does the US gain from turkey joining the EU? is it important (to the US) to have a muslim country be part of the EU? maybe they reckon it would limit any military response turkey might have to some kind of kurdish uprising.

it would also give the EU a border w/ iraq. hmmm....

Turkey has long wanted into the EU. This is all about the US attempting to curry favor with an erstwhile regional ally. It really isn't any of our business, but the Bush remark would have been shrugged off in better times. Those diplomatic chickens, they do come home to roost. (Or should I say, turkeys?)

[zimv20]

Turkey has long wanted into the EU. This is all about the US attempting to curry favor with an erstwhile regional ally.
yeah, i got that. my musings were all based on how expediting the process would help the US. if we're lucky, paul krugman will be sorting out some better ideas soon.

[blackfox]

I find this interesting...I believe there is some interest for the US having Turkey in the EU camp, as its' alternative is in the Islamic one...

Turkey has been petitioning for years for entrance to the EU, but Europe has largely balked at the integration of a large-populous Muslim Nation into an otherwise almost completely homogenous western, Christian club (except Bosnia, Greece, a few others)...I am not sure Turkey will ever be let in, France already struggles with the consequences of a large Muslim minority in their country, as do some others...so I am not sure they find it in their best interests...Either way, it is the EU's call, not the US's

...But back to Turkey...Turkey has, like many Muslim countries, become more Islamicized in recent years, with large gains by Islamic Parties in elections, and a slow shifting of mores away from Kemal-inspired secularism...The developments in Iraq to do with the Kurds, and the tendency for Turkey to align itself with fellow Muslims (who were once enemies) w/ relation to this problem, seems to imply that Turkey might turn it's back on the West, and become the De Facto leader of the Muslim World...This would, most likely, not be a good thing for the US, although I am not sure of the impact on Europe of such a change...

Considering this, (and to be very cynical), perhaps Bush is setting up Europe for the blame if Turkey does join the ME camp...to distract from the instability and shifting of coalitions in the Region resulting from the break-up of occupied Iraq...

Just a thought...

[IJ Reilly]

yeah, i got that. my musings were all based on how expediting the process would help the US. if we're lucky, paul krugman will be sorting out some better ideas soon.

I don't see how Turkey belonging to the EU advances US interests, though maybe someone else can suggest a reason.

In rereading my post above, I notice with some distress that I've managed to work "curry" and "turkey" into the same sentence. What a revolting concept. :(

[zimv20]

I notice with some distress that I've managed to work "curry" and "turkey" into the same sentence. What a revolting concept. :(
this curry ice cream (http://www.vosgeschocolate.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=ICE4PK&Category_Code=ICE) is pretty darn good

[blackfox]

I don't see how Turkey belonging to the EU advances US interests, though maybe someone else can suggest a reason.
:(
I thought I did...anyway, I am not sure if it is a question of Turkeys' joining the EU as advancing US interests, as it is of Turkey not joining being detrimental to US interests.

As I said above, if Turkey was to turn it's back on the EU (and the West) and join (and to a degree, lead) the Muslim world, that would deprive the US of stategic influence in the Region (as related to Military bases, Financial aid [which may come from Islamic sources instead]) and seriously damage the hope of having the ME Democratic along Western lines...and so on...

There is also the possibility that a Turkey included within the EU, would seriously (although perhaps not permanently) destabilize consensus and subsequently, the strength of the EU. This might allow the US to continue to do it's own thing w/o worry of a concerted opposition...although this seems a little too machaivellian to me...

Just speculation....

[Sayhey]

I don't see how Turkey belonging to the EU advances US interests, though maybe someone else can suggest a reason.

I don't think it is in the US interests as Bush defines them. It seems to me that what is going on here is pushing on the fault lines of the EU in order to isolate "old europe" from "new europe." A Turkey more dependent on the US is also more likely one of the goals of this maneuver. Remember the US is talking of moving more troops closer to the Middle East from old German bases. Expanding US bases in Turkey and moving troops to more compliant "new european" countries (Romania, Bulgaria) fits nicely into a new neocon vision of the world.

[skunk]

Turkey has been petitioning for years for entrance to the EU, but Europe has largely balked at the integration of a large-populous Muslim Nation into an otherwise almost completely homogenous western, Christian club (except Bosnia, Greece, a few others)...I am not sure Turkey will ever be let in, France already struggles with the consequences of a large Muslim minority in their country, as do some others...so I am not sure they find it in their best interests...Either way, it is the EU's call, not the US's
I believe the continued exclusion of Turkey has more to do with the question of Cyprus than the number of Muslims in the population. The EU generally looks askance at pre-emptive attacks....

[takao]

1. the greece vs. turkey question (not only about cyprus)...they are having these 'problems' with each other since centuries...

2.economically turkey is not ready (like other countries)

3.discrimination etc. against the kurdish minorites...(leading to terrorism,criminality)

4. problem of excessive coruption in police/etc.

5. and of course there is still the discussion if they are still part of europe...you know their culture is even with there secularism still very different...

in the next 5 years there is no change of them joining.. perhaps in the longer time period of 10 years..but _not_ before they sort out problems
there are still some countries which should join the EU first (in the balcan etc)

[skunk]

1. the greece vs. turkey question (not only about cyprus)...they are having these 'problems' with each other since centuries...
This could equally apply to UK/Eire and UK/Spain relationships, even UK/France. Hmmm. Why is it always the UK, I wonder?

2.economically turkey is not ready (like other countries)
This could equally apply to several current EU members

3.discrimination etc. against the kurdish minorites...(leading to terrorism,criminality)
This could apply to Latvia with its Russian minority

4. problem of excessive coruption in police/etc.
This could apply to almost any country

5. and of course there is still the discussion if they are still part of europe...you know their culture is even with there secularism still very different...
This could apply to the UK!

It just goes to show... ;)

[takao]

skunk well now if one country combines all these things then it is very unlikly.. you know italy has a german minority.. but they sorted the problems out like many others..austria signed that they will protect the slovenian/hungarian minorities.... the turkish government are not willing to sort the problems with the kurds out...
on the other side torture from police still happens in the absolutly sub EU-standard prisons even against _tourists_ from the EU

i know quite a few persons with turkish roots (most of the time their parents where born there and came up here in the past for work)... "beautifull country and nice people but the politic situation is horrible" most of them want turkey to join the EU (like me) but not now or in the next few years

and yeah i seriously doubt that in latvia russian villages are destroyed and the people get deported into other parts of the country...

it's not the problem that there is only _one_ thing...the problem is that there are _multiple_ things

[skunk]

it's not the problem that there is only _one_ thing...the problem is that there are _multiple_ things
I do agree with you on the whole. It's just rather ironic how the EU sets these standards. A similar irony to the US dictating human rights standards to the world while abusing them in Iraq.

[blackfox]

I believe the continued exclusion of Turkey has more to do with the question of Cyprus than the number of Muslims in the population. The EU generally looks askance at pre-emptive attacks....
Why that may be true, Skunk, it may just be intricately related in the EU's mind...the point being is that Turkish Culture, not sharing in the common history of current EU members, does not have the same values as such, and are from the EU's perspective, more likely to commit such offenses and less likely to change, as their value system does not discern in the same manner...

It is this incompatability of Cultural Values that I think makes the EU wary of Turkeys' entrance into their "club", as it would be that much harder to integrate the whole and work on consensus with such differences...If you look at the EU now, it is all Catholic/Protestant, with Greece and Cyprus the only Orthodox members (I believe)...Cyprus is brand-new, and Greece has been troublesome to the whole at times...looking at the prospective members, you have Turkey, Bulgaria and Romania...two Orthodox, one Muslim...I think you might see some Baltic states in before them...

I guess I am saying never underestimate the importance of common-values in pragmatic governance...it makes thing much easier...and they are already plenty difficult now.

[IJ Reilly]

I don't think it is in the US interests as Bush defines them. It seems to me that what is going on here is pushing on the fault lines of the EU in order to isolate "old europe" from "new europe." A Turkey more dependent on the US is also more likely one of the goals of this maneuver. Remember the US is talking of moving more troops closer to the Middle East from old German bases. Expanding US bases in Turkey and moving troops to more compliant "new european" countries (Romania, Bulgaria) fits nicely into a new neocon vision of the world.

Perhaps, but it seems to me having Turkey in the EU only causes them to look more towards Europe (old or otherwise) and less towards the US. I don't want to read too much into the Bush statement. I personally believe it was simply another ham-handed diplomatic effort on the part of the Bush administration. Apparently he couldn't find something nice to say to people of country he was visiting without stepping on someone else's toes. That's pretty much par for the course where Bush is concerned.

[takao]

Perhaps, but it seems to me having Turkey in the EU only causes them to look more towards Europe (old or otherwise) and less towards the US. I don't want to read too much into the Bush statement. I personally believe it was simply another ham-handed diplomatic effort on the part of the Bush administration. Apparently he couldn't find something nice to say to people of country he was visiting without stepping on someone else's toes. That's pretty much par for the course where Bush is concerned.

well i hope that's the answer ... perhaps hsi statement was misinterpreted as "backing turkey" instead "hoping the best for turkey"

[Sayhey]

Perhaps, but it seems to me having Turkey in the EU only causes them to look more towards Europe (old or otherwise) and less towards the US. I don't want to read too much into the Bush statement.

You are probably right, IJ, that I'm reading too much into this blunder. I'm being very cynical in my view. I don't think Bush ever really wanted to advance Turkey's EU membership. Rather I'm looking at this as a way for the US to stir up a hornet's nest of resentment in Turkey, knowing full well that France and others don't support early entry. This enables the US to sit back while this fight rages and whisper in Turkey's ear "see, we were with you all along, but those arrogant Frenchies..." Anyway, Chirac is right - this is none of our business.

I personally believe it was simply another ham-handed diplomatic effort on the part of the Bush administration. Apparently he couldn't find something nice to say to people of country he was visiting without stepping on someone else's toes. That's pretty much par for the course where Bush is concerned.

Your reading of it is much more straight forward and likely. I can't help but see darker interests involved.

[Sayhey]

Bush's remarks may have been a stupid blunder, but he is sticking by them.

Bush defiant on Turkey's EU bid

US President George W Bush has repeated his call for Turkey to be admitted to the EU, despite being rebuked by France for interfering in Europe's affairs.

Mr Bush told students in Istanbul the US believed that "as a European power, Turkey belongs in the European Union".

He said EU membership for Turkey would be "a crucial advance in relations between the Muslim world and the West".

On Monday, French President Jacques Chirac denounced Mr Bush's call for Turkey to get a date for EU acceptance.

Mr Chirac said the US president had gone too far, adding that his remarks were like Mr Chirac telling the US how to manage relations with Mexico.

Correspondents say US-French friction remains, despite attempts to heal rifts left by the Iraq war which France bitterly opposed.

'Not his concern'

In his latest speech, Mr Bush said: "Including Turkey in the EU would prove that Europe is not the exclusive club of a single religion, and it would expose the 'clash of civilisations' as a passing myth of history."

He went on to say that Nato leaders at their summit in Istanbul had dedicated themselves to the advance of reform in the Middle East.

"I believe that freedom is the future of the Middle East, because I believe that freedom is the future of all humanity," he said.

On Sunday, Mr Bush praised Turkey as a model Muslim democracy, and a country which embraced the rule of law and freedom.

Speaking on the sidelines of the summit the following day, Mr Chirac said this was none of Mr Bush's business.

"Not only did he go too far, he ventured into territory which is not his concern," he said.

Mr Chirac has in the past said he backs Turkish EU membership in principle if Ankara fulfils its conditions.

Turkey is keen to start membership talks, and argues that it has already met most of the criteria.

BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3850181.stm)

[skunk]

Bush's remarks may have been a stupid blunder, but he is sticking by them.
What he should realize is that, with an EU Muslim population of 15 million (http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/fellows/taspinar20030301.htm) European Muslims are already taking a significant part in European politics.

[takao]

What he should realize is that, with an EU Muslim population of 15 million (http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/fellows/taspinar20030301.htm) European Muslims are already taking a significant part in European politics.

well i live in a town where there is a local "turkish party"...(they only gained a few percent 3-5% but they are still there) and about 10-15% are bilinguar with german and turkish in elementary schools ...(actually there are even schools where it goes beyond 30%)
the austrian army has a _muslim only_ military unit for 'strong believers' where they get the special food/their time for prayers etc.
during my service there where about ~10% as well... and half of them got seperate food..

edit: found some stats: in austria 4,2 % are muslims (according to the counting 2001) and fast increasing...

[IJ Reilly]

Bush's remarks may have been a stupid blunder, but he is sticking by them.

Which only raises the question, can a blunder ever be smart? :)

[Ugg]

His statement was inappropriate as the EU is encouraging Turkey to join. However, Turkey's treatments of its dissidents, its corruption and weak economic planning leave a lot to be desired. I think gw is telling the EU that it should ignore the worst of Turkey's problems (like the US does with its client states) and let it join anyway. That would be a serious mistake given the weak condition of the EU. Had he done this in private it would not have been an issue yet he chose to make it public. I think there is something dark and sinister behind his statement, what it is I don't know.

On the other hand, the EU does need to deal with its Muslim population better than it has. I don't know how headscarves have played out in Austria, takao, but in Germany, the UK, and France it hasn't gone well at all. Germany's treatment of Turks mainly, due to its guest worker program of the 50s and 60s is not good.

gw should keep his complaints private and the EU should do more to integrate Muslims into society, hopefully without the backlash of fundamentalism.

[skunk]

Which only raises the question, can a blunder ever be smart? :)
Are you implying that Shrub is only PRETENDING to be a complete ass? I've heard this theory before, but I discounted it early on: nobody is that good an actor.

[Sayhey]

Actually, skunk, I think IJ is only pointing out how I was being redundant in my wording. A good natured correction from a friend. It won't be the last blunder (stupid or otherwise) I will make. ;)

On the surface, there is a lot of truth to Bush's remarks. Turkey's inclusion in the EU would be a wonderful accomplishment. Of course it doesn't deal with any of the questions of the reality of Turkish society that Ugg raises and the effect of those problems being included in the EU in the form of the Union's most populous state.

When I look at this statement by Bush and combine it with the attempts earlier this year to scuttle the Constitution around an independent EU military force, I can only conclude that the Bush administration has as one of its goals the splitting of the Europe along new lines. I think the rhetoric of "Old Europe" and "New Europe" has deeper meanings for neoconservative strategists. Again, this maybe the paranoia of someone who views neocon thinking as very dangerous for the world, but I think I will have to do some closer readings of their opinion pieces on the future of the EU.

[skunk]

When I look at this statement by Bush and combine it with the attempts earlier this year to scuttle the Constitution around an independent EU military force, I can only conclude that the Bush administration has as one of its goals the splitting of the Europe along new lines.
And perhaps Blair doesn't mind: the UK government's preferred configuration of the EU is strangely congruent with the US administration's.

[30jan-1972]

And perhaps Blair doesn't mind: the UK government's preferred configuration of the EU is strangely congruent with the US administration's.

As an Irishman and EU citizen, I would be happy to see Turkey admitted to the EU in due course.

Also, if England could be shown the door that would be good too, but one thing at a time.

30 Jan 1972

[Sayhey]

As an Irishman and EU citizen, I would be happy to see Turkey admitted to the EU in due course.

Also, if England could be shown the door that would be good too, but one thing at a time.

30 Jan 1972

Hey, Bloody Sunday, we all have to get along in here! :D Welcome, by the way.

[skunk]

As an Irishman and EU citizen, I would be happy to see Turkey admitted to the EU in due course.

Also, if England could be shown the door that would be good too, but one thing at a time.

30 Jan 1972
Hmmm. Enchanté.

[30jan-1972]

Hey, Bloody Sunday, we all have to get along in here! :D Welcome, by the way.

I'm all for getting along, that's why I welcome the Turks in their aspirations to join the EU. I just think it's a bit of a laugh to talk about the "UK government's preferred configuration of the EU" given that:

1) They are the largest and loudest voice of anti-EU sentiment within the EU.
2) They are more in line with the foreign policies of the U.S. government than their own citizens or the citizens of other EU nations.

If they are so comfortable with the U.S. and so opposed to the EU, why not just leave the EU and join NAFTA or somesuch. Maybe they would find it more to their liking. I am cetainly not alone amongst Europeans or Irishmen in my disdain for the British Euro-skeptics who in one breath rail against the very EU and in the next attempt to lord over it.

30 Jan 1972

[Sayhey]

I'm all for getting along, that's why I welcome the Turks in their aspirations to join the EU. I just think it's a bit of a laugh to talk about the "UK government's preferred configuration of the EU" given that:

1) They are the largest and loudest voice of anti-EU sentiment within the EU.
2) They are more in line with the foreign policies of the U.S. government than their own citizens or the citizens of other EU nations.

If they are so comfortable with the U.S. and so opposed to the EU, why not just leave the EU and join NAFTA or somesuch. Maybe they would find it more to their liking. I am cetainly not alone amongst Europeans or Irishmen in my disdain for the British Euro-skeptics who in one breath rail against the very EU and in the next attempt to lord over it.

30 Jan 1972

I don't think anyone was arguing that Turkey shouldn't be in the EU. It is only on what schedule and under what conditions. Most importantly it isn't up to the Bush administration to dictate the "how or the if" of Turkish membership. Taking the risk of seeming like my less than illustrious President, I have ventured an opinion on the state of affairs in the EU on a few occassions. I have stated and continue to believe that a strong EU is the only hope of Europeans to not play second fiddle to the US. Given that the EU is based, at least in part, on the acceptance of standards of human rights and participation of each nation in decision making, I think this is a positive thing not only for Europe but for the world.

I don't have a problem with the criticism of the Euroskeptics in England. I find the politics of the Tories and the UKIP almost as reprehensible as some of our US variety. The anti-immigrant and xenophobic rhetoric is akin to the right wing of the US. Substitute the word "Mexican" for "Turk" or "Pakistani" and the same hateful speeches could be played here.

My only problem with your initial post was the idea that England (I note the use of the word "England" as opposed to "Great Britain" or the even more troubling "UK") should be forced out of the EU. I don't like the idea of surrendering any nation to the politics of Tory/GOP style nationalism. Granted the leadership of Blair hasn't been much better, especially in regards to Iraq, but I'm ever hopeful that the sentiments of the people of England will win through. I don't believe for a minute that the English people want to become an appendage of US foreign policy.

PS - perhaps you might want to explain the significance of your name. Not many folks on this side of the Atlantic know of Bloody Sunday, other than a line in a U2 song.

[skunk]

I'm all for getting along, that's why I welcome the Turks in their aspirations to join the EU.
I also welcome Turkey's aspirations to join. I'm sure it would be a Very Good Thing. The UK government will be happier the more members join up - enlargement was after all largely a UK initiative - as it will provide in their view greater balance than the old Franco-German axis.

If they are so comfortable with the U.S. and so opposed to the EU, why not just leave the EU and join NAFTA or somesuch. Maybe they would find it more to their liking. I am cetainly not alone amongst Europeans or Irishmen in my disdain for the British Euro-skeptics who in one breath rail against the very EU and in the next attempt to lord over it.
What is wrong with wanting to negotiate reasonable terms and conditions? This is nothing to do with Euro-scepticism. The CAP and fisheries policy are a mess, counter-productive, anti-competitive and extravagant. Perhaps Eire, as one of the four net recipients of EU funds, has different interests.

[blackfox]

PS - perhaps you might want to explain the significance of your name. Not many folks on this side of the Atlantic know of Bloody Sunday, other than a line in a U2 song.
Hey! We are not that thick here stateside, Sayhey...

As far as the UK vs EU...let me preface by saying that my knowledge of the subject is about on par w/ your average trained monkey...but I still have an opinion. You might say I mirror our president in that regard...

It seems to me, w/o going into detail, that much of the argument has to do with age-old political rivalries/power-centers of France, Germany and the UK, with the latter not wishing to surrender it self to continental affairs and oversight, which it has been apart from, to it's benefit, for so long...seems a matter of Pride in the English system, and of not needing to fix something that is not broken...it seems that the English populace is pretty much united against further EU integration at this time, across political parties...

If I am way off-base, let me know...I am a trainable monkey, after all...

[Sayhey]

Hey! We are not that thick here stateside, Sayhey...

LOL, ok if I recall you spent some of your youth in Great Britain. What do you think are the odds that the average British youngster might know something about Bloody Sunday that the average American youth might not? I would love to think you are right that English human rights abuses in Northern Ireland are things that the people of the US are aware of, but I think most Americans think all the "troubles" are the result of Irish "terrorists." A term that includes, in American eyes, most of the populace of the North.

[blackfox]

LOL, ok if I recall you spent some of your youth in Great Britain. What do you think are the odds that the average British youngster might know something about Bloody Sunday that the average American youth might not? I would love to think you are right that English human rights abuses in Northern Ireland are things that the people of the US are aware of, but I think most Americans think all the "troubles" are the result of Irish "terrorists." A term that includes, in American eyes, most of the populace of the North.
Not to be provocative, but how "unbiased" do you think my knowledge of the event was growing up in England? A participant in the struggle...my father despises the Irish to this day, for completely irrational/nationalistic reasons (unless it involves Rugby or Football, for some reason)...relatedly, he is also steadfast against England's integration w/ the EU.

It was not till I moved to the US, that I got a more balanced picture of the events/situation surrounding SBS, and other like events from that conflict. Of course, some of that has to do with me becoming older of course...

*edit* due to poor wording, I mean "a participant in the struggle" to apply to England, not my father...

[skunk]

This is about Turkey, right?

[30jan-1972]

I also welcome Turkey's aspirations to join. I'm sure it would be a Very Good Thing. The UK government will be happier the more members join up - enlargement was after all largely a UK initiative - as it will provide in their view greater balance than the old Franco-German axis.
I agree with you here. The English have certainly done more to promote Turkish acension than the French side of the Franco-German power block. That being said, I see a different additional reason behind the support of the acension of Turkey - namely a means to more effectively keep Turks out of England.

What is wrong with wanting to negotiate reasonable terms and conditions? This is nothing to do with Euro-scepticism. The CAP and fisheries policy are a mess, counter-productive, anti-competitive and extravagant. Perhaps Eire, as one of the four net recipients of EU funds, has different interests.
Reasonable terms certainly are fair and I have no problem with them. In particular, I feel that respecting human rights and a satisfactory resolution to the Turkish occupation of Northern Cyprus are critical. As to the comments on the Irish I will not respond to thinly veiled sterotypes of the "poor Irish" from an Englishman.

My only problem with your initial post was the idea that England (I note the use of the word "England" as opposed to "Great Britain" or the even more troubling "UK") should be forced out of the EU. I don't like the idea of surrendering any nation to the politics of Tory/GOP style nationalism. Granted the leadership of Blair hasn't been much better, especially in regards to Iraq, but I'm ever hopeful that the sentiments of the people of England will win through. I don't believe for a minute that the English people want to become an appendage of US foreign policy.
The people of England bear collective responsibility for the actions (good and bad) of their elected officials - as do the Irish and the Americans. Moreso when said officials are repeatedly returned to office.

PS - perhaps you might want to explain the significance of your name. Not many folks on this side of the Atlantic know of Bloody Sunday, other than a line in a U2 song.
Very briefly, for the uninformed, 30 January, 1972 is one of several dates known by heart to all the Irish. On that date, elite elements of the English military opened fire on a group of peaceful and unarmed civil rights marchers. It was a seminal moment in the history of the still ongoing problems in Northern Ireland and is a moment that evokes strong feelings to this day. 32 years later and justice for the dead has not been served as every English inquiry into the event has done NOTHING but protect the criminal paratroops. Though it does not compare to the tragic scale of 9/11, it holds a similar significance to the Irish. Moreover, it is also emblematic of the larger oppression of the Irish by the English - many books have been and could be written to fully explain the magnitude of this event on the Irish psyche.

The English to this day continue to occupy land that is not theirs. They have tried for hundreds of years through murder, torture, rape, ethnic cleansing and outright genocide to gain control over Ireland. Today they hold on to Northern Ireland in a continuation of that crime.

I am a non-violent opponent to any English rule over Northern Ireland. I do not support acts of terror or oppression by either side. Until the day comes when all of Ireland is free, it is important that noone forget or mitigate the ongoing evils in Northern Ireland being perpetrated on behalf of the English people by its elected officials and their thugs.

And I say English, because the Scottish and the Welsh are not in my eyes responsible for the situation. I do not want to place blame for such things on them. I support their rights to self-determination and hope they will do the same when Republicans in Northern Ireland outnumber Unionists.

30 Jan 1972

[30jan-1972]

Please, don't anybody mention potatoes...

This is about Turkey, right?

Poor potato-eating Irish. Anti-Irish bigotry is unbecoming and telling.

30 Jan 1972

[skunk]

I agree with you here. The English have certainly done more to promote Turkish acension than the French side of the Franco-German power block. That being said, I see a different additional reason behind the support of the acension of Turkey - namely a means to more effectively keep Turks out of England.
How would it do that? They would have free access.

Reasonable terms certainly are fair and I have no problem with them. In particular, I feel that respecting human rights and a satisfactory resolution to the Turkish occupation of Northern Cyprus are critical. As to the comments on the Irish I will not respond to thinly veiled sterotypes of the "poor Irish" from an Englishman.
Check you shoulder: you may find a chip on it. I was making no reference to the "poor Irish", veiled or otherwise. Obviously those countries which are net beneficiaries of the EU budget will feel differently about things like the CAP than those which are net donors.

The people of England bear collective responsibility for the actions (good and bad) of their elected officials - as do the Irish and the Americans. Moreso when said officials are repeatedly returned to office.
Please elucidate. Which officials? Who are they elected by? The "people of England", or all UK voters, or are they appointed?

Very briefly, for the uninformed, 30 January, 1972 is one of several dates known by heart to all the Irish. On that date, elite elements of the English military opened fire on a group of peaceful and unarmed civil rights marchers. It was a seminal moment in the history of the still ongoing problems in Northern Ireland and is a moment that evokes strong feelings to this day. 32 years later and justice for the dead has not been served as every English inquiry into the event has done NOTHING but protect the criminal paratroops. Though it does not compare to the tragic scale of 9/11, it holds a similar significance to the Irish. Moreover, it is also emblematic of the larger oppression of the Irish by the English - many books have been and could be written to fully explain the magnitude of this event on the Irish psyche.
I agree absolutely that the paratroops should be brought to justice. This was a serious criminal act, and those who authorized it and carried it out should be held responsible.

The English to this day continue to occupy land that is not theirs. They have tried for hundreds of years through murder, torture, rape, ethnic cleansing and outright genocide to gain control over Ireland. Today they hold on to Northern Ireland in a continuation of that crime.
They're not English. A lot of them were, but even more were Scots (who of course were originally Irish). This is ancient history. What do you propose to do? Drive them into the sea?

I am a non-violent opponent to any English rule over Northern Ireland. I do not support acts of terror or oppression by either side. Until the day comes when all of Ireland is free, it is important that noone forget or mitigate the ongoing evils in Northern Ireland being perpetrated on behalf of the English people by its elected officials and their thugs.

And I say English, because the Scottish and the Welsh are not in my eyes responsible for the situation. I do not want to place blame for such things on them. I support their rights to self-determination and hope they will do the same when Republicans in Northern Ireland outnumber Unionists.
You may not "want" to place the blame on the Scots and Welsh, but, like it or not, they are indivisible in this respect. Don't forget that our PM is Scots-educated, our Chancellor is a Scot, even the Minister for Northern Ireland was a Scot. I also support the right to self-determination. I hope that an agreement may be reached without Republicans having to breed themselves into a majority. Whichever way it happens, it looks like it will take some time. The churches could certainly do a lot of good by coming together, but that may take even longer.

[blackfox]

So...er...how 'bout that <insert local> sports team?...ahem...

[skunk]

So...er...how 'bout that <insert local> sports team?...ahem...
You talking 'bout the Greeks? Fantastic game.

[Sayhey]

skunk, you're an intelligent man, but the shots about "potatoes" and "breeding" are well over the line. I make no bones about my sympathies for Republicans, of the non-violent sort, when it comes to Ireland, but perhaps my request to explain the history of Bloody Sunday helped to derail the thread into an area that could well get too nasty. I welcomed our new member and I hope he feels welcomed, not subjected to name calling because of his nationality. If I contributed to that I'm sorry.

If we want to start a thread on Irish history or the status of politics in Northern Ireland, we should do so and not derail this thread. The subject is Turkey's entry in the EU and the US government's intrusion into that discussion. Let's keep it there for the moment, please.

[skunk]

skunk, you're an intelligent man, but the shots about "potatoes" and "breeding" are well over the line. I make no bones about my sympathies for Republicans, of the non-violent sort, when it comes to Ireland, but perhaps my request to explain the history of Bloody Sunday helped to derail the thread into an area that could well get too nasty. I welcomed our new member and I hope he feels welcomed, not subjected to name calling because of his nationality. If I contributed to that I'm sorry.

If we want to start a thread on Irish history or the status of politics in Northern Ireland, we should do so and not derail this thread. The subject is Turkey's entry in the EU and the US government's intrusion into that discussion. Let's keep it there for the moment, please.
Although I did not intend it, I can see that my comments were careless and easy to misconstrue, and I sincerely apologize to 30 Jan '72 for any offence caused. No name-calling was involved, however. My ill-judged reference to potatoes was to the Famine, nothing else: I was unwilling for this thread about Turkey to be diverted to a discussion about the last 300 years of Irish oppression by the English. The "breeding" comment was not intended to be stereotyping either, but as a response to 30 Jan's comment about the changing demographic in Ireland. It is of course true that over time, the Catholic population will outnumber the Prods due to birthrate differences: I was expressing a hope that the Irish would not have to wait until then to have political justice. This view assumes that the politics of NI will continue to be split along sectarian lines, to the exclusion of issues of common interest to the whole community.

For the record, I regard the whole history of English oppression of the Irish as a shameful, and continuing stain on our national character. Bloody Sunday was a disgraceful abuse of power by a racist establishment, on a par with Israeli treatment of Palestinians. The institutions in NI, especially the police, having been designed to perpetrate political and social inequality, are still sectarian and racist in nature, and gross injustices are still built into the system. If I were Irish, I would be constantly affronted and angered by the colonialist arrogance and the occupation of my land. The six counties should be returned to the Irish people, but those who "occupy" them cannot be deported en masse, they will have to be accommodated. The bitterness on both sides must be allowed to fade away, not be reinforced by the churches, schools and political organizations.

But as you say, that is a subject for its own thread. I apologize for extending the diversion.

I, too, welcome you to the Forum, 30 Jan '72.

[Sayhey]

Well said, skunk, very well said.

[30jan-1972]

Skunk, thank you for the clarification and your thoughtful remarks. They are very much appreciated.

It is sometimes hard to explain the mix of sorrow and anger that most Irish people feel on this entire subject. On one hand, we want peace and we want to move on. But on the other, we want the historical and present injustices to be corrected. And, until these things are made right, we must never forget what has happened.

I absolutely do not support sectartian violence by either side and I hope that one day Catholic and Protestant will live together in peace as they do in the South. I certainly do understand the fear that Protestants in the North have of this future, owing to the majority status of the Catholic faith in Ireland. However, I hope that that fear does not continue to fuel the racism and bigotry that permeates the status quo in the North.

Back to Turkey...

I think the Turkish question is a critical one for the EU. While the U.S. is meddling in affairs that are none of its business, they are at least on the right side of this issue.

Turkey has great steps yet to take in judicial and economic areas, not to mention the occupation of Northern Cyprus. But these can be accomplished in time just as the countries of the former Soviet bloc accomplished the tasks set before them. Turkey is a European nation and is right to strive for acension.

In a related matter, the EU and who is or is not a member is not for the U.S. to say. The EU is not NATO and is no servant to America. We will chart our own European course for the future.

Regards,

30 Jan 1972

[Sayhey]

... Back to Turkey...

I think the Turkish question is a critical one for the EU. While the U.S. is meddling in affairs that are none of its business, they are at least on the right side of this issue.

Turkey has great steps yet to take in judicial and economic areas, not to mention the occupation of Northern Cyprus. But these can be accomplished in time just as the countries of the former Soviet bloc accomplished the tasks set before them. Turkey is a European nation and is right to strive for acension.

In a related matter, the EU and who is or is not a member is not for the U.S. to say. The EU is not NATO and is no servant to America. We will chart our own European course for the future.

Regards,

30 Jan 1972

I've already raised my doubts that the US is really on the side of Turkey on this issue. Rather, I see this as a cynical use of the issue to further divisions within the EU, particularly aimed at France. I say France because it is my reading, and maybe I'm too uncritical in my eye on the German english-edition press, that the current Social-Democratic Government is a supporter of early entry. Chirac, on the other hand, has a multitude of reasons, many of them unsavory, to try to stop Turkey from getting in the EU. All of which puts the focus of US intervention into EU matters squarely on Chirac's shoulders. That is the principal aim of Bush's policy; division of "old Europe" and "new Europe."

As to the issue itself, I agree that there is no reason Turkey can't make the same transition that many other states have done to reach the Copenhagen standards of entry. I look at recent moves around treatment of Kurds and see reason to hope. I also am aware of the not very distant past that included political assassination and torture as part of Turkish life (the Grey Wolves, etc.) It should be hoped by all the present trend is continued and not overlooked because of outside pressure to push early entry. Lastly, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't it still, even under the new constitution, take a unanimous vote of all EU nations to allow a candidate to formally enter into the EU? If so, I can't see Turkish membership without the withdrawal of troops from Cyprus. Neither Greece or Cyprus itself would allow such a thing.

In the immediate future, I don't know enough about the Netherlands PM's skills in negotiation, but the next six months will sorely test them in trying to come up with a compromise. One thing I will predict is, if a date is given for Turkish entry in November or December, it will be used as a club by forces like the UKIP to sow fear in an electorate trying to decide on the virtues or failings of the new constitution. Certainly the right-wing including Le Pen, Haider, the Northern League, and the BNP will put it front and center. The question will be how much farther the rhetoric will spread into the campaigns of the Tories and others.