Re: Turkey !

From: Kenneth Van Oost (
Date: Mon Feb 11 2002 - 16:36:20 GMT

  • Next message: Grant Callaghan: "RE: ply to Grant"

    Received: by id QAA10228 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 16:35:01 GMT
    Message-ID: <000901c1b31a$5afdf940$bca4eb3e@default>
    From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <>
    To: <>
    References: <>
    Subject: Re: Turkey !
    Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 17:36:20 +0100
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
    X-Priority: 3
    X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
    X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
    Precedence: bulk

    Hi Ronan,
    > >Squeezed between Europe and Asia, IMO the government has chosen
    > >for the less painful solution.
    > I'm unsure of what you mean by this (I've not read the whole thread, and
    I'm not up-to-date on Turkey). What 'solutions' are there to choose
    between? If you mean helping NATO was less painful, I'm sure you're right
    in some regards (as NATO would quite happily create unrest, stage a coup or
    ultimately bomb any country which doesn't fall into line with it's own
    values). Which 'solution' are we talking about?

    IMO, that can only be a political one. Turkey lieing on the border between
    West and East has chosen the Western side of things,
    1 to protect itself from that same East, where the armed conflict between
    Armenia and Azerbeidzjan still needs to be settled and where Turkey has
    a special interest.
    2 Iraq in the South, Syria and Iran are not that keen on the West either.
    3 The Cyprus dispute, where atleast now things begin to move
    4 their historical quarrel with Greece
    5 the Bosporus, the only way out to sea in the South for the former USSR,
    now for the Ukraine and Russia.
    6 The rise of Islam, the seperation between politics and religion is
    and I suppose the government is not keen on situations like in Algeria.
    7 the PKK of Ícelan.

    In trying to get support, ( but the West did played a lot up I suppose), and
    I suppose to get in the clear with their interior affairs, they let the West
    On the other hand, the West did indulge Turkey with money and far more
    with to keep one eye shut where the human rights were concerned if only
    our planes could land there.
    Turkey placed itself entirely out of Eastern things with such an attitude
    regarding the West, an attitude I suppose not that surprising.
    Since its creation in 1923 Turkey was more Western orientated than Eastern.
    The only thing to do, was to search for a greater connection with the West.

    What the control of the Islamitic world is concerned, I think, with the
    cultural/ social/ ... history in mind that some fractions are not that keen
    introducing or allowing Islamitic rule take root. One such an attempt was
    crushed in blood. Although that must be one indication to the ruling parties
    that not everything is/ was allright !History in mind again, Turks are more
    conquerors than followers ( see the history of Armenia ).

    With out of the way I meant, the problems with Iraq, the war stopped,the
    misery not, that the West ( Europe) wants to see some things settled_
    Cyprus , the Kurds, the PKK and the human rights of course.
    Now that Turkey no longer acts as an airfield for us, the government has
    time and money to spend on other more important issues.
    If the country wants to be a member of the EU things like the ones above
    must be settled.
    Atleast on one point Turkey committed itself and that was not to execute
    Ícelan, the leader of the PKK.

    And that brings us to the Kurds- issue. I don ' know mush about their
    history, just that they are nomads wandering between Turkey, Syria, Iran,
    Irak and the former USSR. Since the 19 century they fight for an indepen-
    dence Kurdistan. Not that mush trouble over there.
    The problems began when Hoessein in Iraq saw the Kurds as a threat to
    his internal security. They fled over the border to Turkey, where atleast
    how I understand it, they were welcome. They were sheltered, giving
    food and a roof above their head.
    But that was all what Turkey did, and IMO understandable.

    But, the Kurds, united in what became the PKK wanted more and that too
    is/ was understandable. The governments didn 't comply to the legitimate
    demands of the Kurds which in return began to hustle the population.
    A new conflict was born.
    Kurds are/ were seen as a minority and of course when the PKK began
    their attacks as enemies. The imprisonment of its leader has left the PKK
    defenseless and how to treat them now, is a hot issue on the Euopean
    agenda to let Turkey in or not.

    I suppose, personal notes, that Turkey will become a member of the EU
    without solving the issues about the Kurds and the human rights.
    To throw us dust in the eyes, Turkey, with help from its then Euopean
    partners will clear up the problems about Cyprus and those with Greece.
    The West will shut its eyes on its than most Eastern border, it will give
    any help Turkey requires to settle the issues about the Kurds and others
    once and for all.
    In a way, Europe wants stability within its borders, to defend those it will
    do anything. Don 't forget, Kurds are an Islamitic people !!
    In a sense you can say, it is a war between religions and ideologies, Turkey
    belongs to neither of them but chooses to one more beneficial for its
    I hope in a way that it don 't backfires and on the other hand I hope it



    This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
    Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
    For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 11 2002 - 16:50:58 GMT