Middle East puzzle
Should the European Union extend into the Middle East?
The Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, seems to think so. He's where, of course, that the EU should be less about concentrating power at the centre and more about nation states doing more together.
In some ways, re-reading it, it's striking how uncontroversial a lot of her arguments sound today. But she might not approve of Mr Miliband's enthusiasm for the organisation. He will say that the European Union is not a superpower but a model power, because global institutions such as the UN are too big and nation states too small to cope with today's problems.
Intriguingly, he'll hint at the possibility of extending the European Union across the Mediterranean. He will say that, by 2030, the EU's single market should be extended to the Middle East and North Africa. He'll also say that membership of the European Union should not be based on geography but accepting the EU's rules. Is he really suggesting that Iraq could one day be in the EU? I don't know and I haven't seen the full speech but I hope to ask him. Watch this space.
I’m Mark Mardell, the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
°δ΄Η³Ύ³Ύ±π²Τ³Ω²υΜύΜύ Post your comment
Seems like another way of getting us to pay for the cost of reconstructing the mess the US bombers made of Iraq.
I think it would put the arguments about Farm subsidies into the shade.
Using David Miliband's reasoning, there is no reason why Australia, Taiwan or Argentina couldn't be in the EU. I also suspect those counties are closer to EU rules in regards to things like human rights, the judiciary and economic reform than many Middle Eastern states.
By 2030 David Milliband would be 65 maybe young enough to still be prime minister or possibly just in time for him retire as PM to take the position as president of the new multi continent EU.
The EU must keep growing and expanding to assure the circulation of people, goods and services and to compete against the trading blocks of US, China and India.
The majot economies are already beginning to compete
against each other for the best people, at every level.
So an open-door policy will eventually be required.
Actually, we have been running a de-facto open-door policy for at least ten years. It is impossible to enforce a selective policy anyway.
We need a politics that acknowledges this openly.
The question about whether we can imagine an EU that includes Iraq (or the African Mediterranean Nations) and extends geographically beyond Western Europe is a good
way of thinking about this.
Good for Milliband and good for the EU.
Paul Rennie
So Milliband is going to propose extending the EU across the Mediterranean? Seems as if the Eurabia policy is a reality.
North Africa has few shared values or ideas or traditions with Europe and to say otherwise is intellectually trite at best.
While this isn't really that important, the EU is already present in North and South America, Africa, ans Asia thanks to France's overseas departments and territories.
If Milliband wants to include Iraq etc then we should change the name
to Eurabian Union, thus still being able to keep the term EU. However,
this Union would be very different and eventually replace the UN as
with every expansion, new neighbors are being placed in immediate
proximity and thus can claim their right to membership as they are
also neighbors. In my opinion this idea is nonsense and we need clear
borders of the political Union. If some neighboring states want to
join into a free market agreement with us let them, but I doubt the
South Koreans will soon apply for membership despite the EU
negotiating such a treaty right now. Millibands statement also shows,
once again, how the British totally misunderstand the concept of the
EU and try with all means to undermine any EU-ropean concept of
identity.
I think the EU should extend membership to Antarctica. Then it could not only boast that its GDP is larger than America's but that its geographical territory is too. Of course there is the problem of millions of penguins who might want to emigrate especially to Britain. How would they get along with the Poles and Pakistanis already there? Well as long as there is an adequate supply of fish and chips and plenty of ice I suppose it will be OK.
It all depends on how one looks at this...
Admitting countries like Morocco (or even Turkey) into the EU at this point in time would sound like just another British attempt to destroy the EU from within.
But what's wrong with a cluster of 'associated' states with close economic links on the EU periphery? Obviously opening the borders would be suicidal, but helping North African or Eastern European countries is the best way to ensure that their citizens won't become illegal immigrants in the EU.
I say no to Turkish membership in the EU. As an EU citizen, I do not want to have EU border with Iraq and I am absolutely not interested in solving the Kurdish question. But I'm all for Turkey's associate membership with some sort of a free trade zone.
The reason for this is simple. Currently the wealth differential between the EU (especially its Western members) and the countries to the south and east is far too big. That's what drives immigration from those countries. The only way to stop the immigration is to reduce the differential, and unless we EUropeans would prefer to be poorer, we have to help the others become less poor.
we should know that the european union will soon expand farther than iraq,because the most powerful nation in all earth wish is noth america is going to make sure that,that happen,it is the vision of america that europe become the modern roman empire,we should all study what has been the europaean agenda since world war 2 and will be convince that that will happen.
I say welcome Iraq ( and Iran ),
join the happy club of Miliband,
youΒ΄re not allowed to smoke,
but you can marry a man
but no doubt soon thereΒ΄ll be
an alchohol ban.
WeΒ΄re in need of people like you & me
to support our failing democracy
so help us out,get on the boat
IΒ΄m a Brit in Germany,.. not allowed to vote !
All the EU needs to be is a trading bloc. We do not need unelected juntas in Brussels and Strasbourg telling us what we can and can't do. If we want to trade with ME countries on a favoured nation basis, that's fair enough, but no freedom of labour across borders from the Magreb, Russia and the ME. No thanks, do I want to live in a neighbourhood full no I don't, any more than they want millions of us to go there and live. The cultural gap is far too wide, it cannot be crossed, and it would be a disaster to try and attempt this. We will not all achieve a higher standard of living, we will all end up living in slums - Had a look at LA lately??
since the E.U.`s criteria for membership do not seem to include being geographically part of Europe...why shouldn`t they [Turkey] be allowed to join !
I'm curious how the poster would explain granting a EU membership to Cyprus, which is located south of Turkey and east of a sizeable portion of it.
Modern, Democratic, secular Turkish Republic will be a good example for other countries in the region.
The E.U. will also continue to spread Eastward until Russia is included. After that, and long way off, it could move south again to Iran, Irag and Turkey and even further of to complete the circle around the Mediteranean. [#21]
I predict that the opposite is going to occur, with European Disunion being eventually encircled, particularly by its enthusiasts from the southern coast of the Med.
And even further.
Reading through Mr. Milliband's speech, I do not see anything that suggests that he believes the EU itself should be open to any country, regardless of geography, as long as they share the values of the institution. In fact, he quite clearly states that "Not all countries will be eligible for full membership, or show the will to join". This is why he talks about "a multilateral free-trade zone around our periphery" so that countries in North Africa, the Middle East and Eastern Europe can develope trade links with the EU even though they would not be eligible to join the EU itself. As I read it, when he talks of 'membership' here, it is membership of the European Free Trade Association that he is referring to, not the EU.
Reading through Mr. Milliband's speech, I do not see anything that suggests that he believes the EU itself should be open to any country, regardless of geography, as long as they share the values of the institution. In fact, he quite clearly states that "Not all countries will be eligible for full membership, or show the will to join". This is why he talks about "a multilateral free-trade zone around our periphery" so that countries in North Africa, the Middle East and Eastern Europe can develope trade links with the EU even though they would not be eligible to join the EU itself. As I read it, when he talks of 'membership' here, it is membership of the European Free Trade Association that he is referring to, not the EU.
For starters, there would seem to be some kind of stark contradiction between "The EU will never be a superpower" and "it must be able to deploy soft and hard power to promote democracy and tackle conflict beyond its borders". That, in a nutshell, seems to be the british problem with EU in too many fields. You can't have it both ways...
Then, to say that the dream of a united Europe has faded away is mere wishful thinking. To make such an speech as Milliband's without ever mentioning the Euro or Schengen, just to mention two examples, is really a masterpiece of ignoring that parts of reality you wish they didn't exist.
Regarding enlargement, however, I agree with him. It's past time EU accepts that some countries will wish to join Europe's free trade area, but don't share many other aspirations with the core of the Union. Britain, perhaps, could be interested in adopting such a position (pun fully intended)
Yes,
no reason why EFTA should not be expanded
no reason why Iraq should not (one day) be a member
no reason why EFTA members should not (one day) join the EU
The EU is already multi-speed anyway: see Eurozone, Schengen, opt-outs etc...
The EU is needed because to have a single market or a single trading bloc you need standards, you need regulations, you need cooperation to solve the problems posed by globalisation and climate change...
...the UK is better off in the EU than in EFTA because inside we have the power to influence the direction of the EU. Outside, we just have to pay the entrance fee and follow the rules that everyone else sets...
...the UK is
I doubt that Mardell's interpretation of Miliband's words is right. Miliband seems to be the most europhile British Foreign Secretary ever, therefore I don't believe he wants to destroy the EU from inside by including in the club countries like Iraq. I don't even think Miliband wants Turkey in the EU, at least not in the immediate future. Miliband knows and believes that Europe is not only a market, but an idea. This has nothing to do with discrimination: Turkey may be is a bridge country, but not a European one.
An unnamed diplomat, quoted by George Parker in today's Financial Times, got it in one. "It was the same old story, a defence of British interests - the UK is cherry-picking what suits them". Or, as Lord Palmerston put it, "Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests".
It is for this reason that the speech is curiously reassuring. Normal service has been resumed, so to speak.
The speech is also replete with what one must assume are unconscious ironies. To quote a few; "The EU has been defined for the past 50 years by a focus on internal change: by a Franco-German bargain over industry and agriculture, by the creation of a single market and the drive for basic social standards; by EMU".
The Foreign Secretary omits to point out that, with the exception of the single market, the UK has been, during this period, either an observer or has, at times, played an obstructionist role e.g. in relation to the original Social Charter.
Another example; the reference to EFTA. This forgotten organisation was hardly an example of successful British diplomacy, proving no substitute for eventual EU membership.
Another, "As the European Central Bank regulates money supply for the eurozone, it is worth thinking whether the idea of a European Carbon Bank could in future set limits on the production of carbon across Europe". Am I missing something here? Or is there a message of some sort?
The most accurate statement by the Foreign Secretary was in relation to institutional reform; that the participants were exhausted and "the rest of the European population are either bored are angry".
The conclusion; the European Union will muddle along in its usual manner. But its leaders will have to pay more attention to their electorates. One matter they will have to address is the difficulties being encountered with the present enlargement never mind mooted further enlargements. If, for example, Croatia joins in 2009, will Germany and Austria extend freedom of movement to the citizens of that country or will they retain their existing restrictions until 2011 (or beyond)?
Mark,
Don't you feel that the EU debate is becoming ever more surreal?
How is Mr Miliband able to get away with claiming the EU is not becoming a "superstate" ... meanwhile pushing for the approval of a treaty which passes yet more powers and decision-making to the EU centre, and which gives the EU its own 'legal personality'?
The direction of travel for power and decision-making is obvious.
Is the ability of Mr Miliband to get away with such obvious contradictions between his words and actions a failure of the media, the public, or both?
Because he certainly appears to believe he can take us all for fools. He should be shamed and ridiculed for that.
cheers,
-Stuart-
Whether one thinks an ever-wider Union is a good idea or not depends on what one's "vision" of the Union should be. Those who favour a wide, loose alliance of freely trading independent nations will jump at the chance to get more countries into the club. Those who favour an identikit Euronation will favour a smaller, more tightly knit model.
Lukas says demeaningly that "the British" don't get it. I think "we" get it perfectly well. The majority don't want to be merged into a Greater Europe by stealth or otherwise, which is why the government can't trust us to decide on the Reform Treaty.
All this talk of Turkey being offered associate membership of the EU with free trade access as an "alternative" to full membership is without substance, as Turkey and the EU have had just such an arrangement for years. Turkey already has the closest relationship with the EU of any third country bar Norway and Iceland. None of the politicians who are campaigning for a "special relationship short of membership" have been able to articulate what this would entail in practice, as just about the only significant concession that could be offered - freedom of movement - is precisely what the anti-membership brigade are resisting.
People here speak about history and shared values as precluding North Africa from joining the EU. Well... during the time of the Roman empire North Africa was part of the same cultural sphere. Plenty of Europeans seem to have migrated there at the time, and later, Vikings, germanic tribes, etc. Genetic studies still show this.
Personally, I think North Africans, the Berber sphere countries would make a good addition to the EU in the future. Obviously they are not ready right now to join the EU, but maybe so in the future.
As for Turkey, I do not want it in the EU because the differences with it don't seem likely to disappear anytime this century... or maybe even the next.
Mr. Miliband's idea of extendiung the EU to the middle East is typical of many bureaucrats who think they are in charge of a herd of animals and hence their only aim is to increase their monetary value. Well man does not live by trade alone.
No no no, the European Union was european and should be only-european in the future. One can have the impression that Millibrand (and he also is British) wants to destroy this successful union through the back door by allowing countries in which are anything but stable (yes, Turkey included). There are several options, these countries can form their own union, Britain can leave the EU to form a union together with them etc etc etc. But wasn't there an article in which Millibrand and Brown also said that their closest ally was and will be the United States? I guess this country is very keen in seeing Turkey and other Middle Eastern countries join the European Union so Britain also is and will be the Trojan horse in the EU for USA. Is it really in the interests of the British that all these countries could join or who is Millibrand really representing?
#12 Denis O'Leary wrote: "the European Union will muddle along in its usual manner."
I agree with that conclusion but shouldn't we be asking why it is that the EU has to "muddle along"
Might this political inertia (more like paralysis) stem from the arcane nature of its hybridised institutional structure, designed specifically to appease both integrationist and intergovernmentalist viewpoints?
The EU cannot, indefinitely, impede its capacity to play a more dynamic role on the world stage or the evolution of its institutional architecture . At some stage the EU will have to decide what kind of structure it should be based upon. For the moment that (constitutional) issue has been deferred but it cannot be suspended in perpetuity.
For me it is the orthodoxy provided by its original "Europe of Nations" model that now presents its most obvious flaw; with each additional new member that axiom becomes more evident.
We need something fundamentally different, something that reflects reality rather than the false identity projected by an EU of disparate member state administrations all with different agendas.
#12 Denis O'Leary wrote: "But its leaders will have to pay more attention to their electorates."
I think various member state governments have been paying far too much attention to their electorates. The problem is that they run scared from the populist agenda propagated by certain groupings and tend to hide from the debate rather than confront it head on. Much easier to shut out the problem and let a successor pick up the pieces later. Once again the problem with that strategy is it merely stores up even greater problems for future generations.
Bold, forward looking, statesmanlike action and strategies are required now, not in a generation. What we get is timidity and lowest common denominator policies designed to appeal to our worst sentiments.
In 18th century Sweden, one party was taking bribes from the French, another was paid by the Russians. To get 21st century Europe, just replace the French with the Americans ... UK politicians seeking to weaken Europe (that's most of them isn't it) belong in the American camp, German politicians lobbying for new Gazprom pipelines are in the Russian camp.
Wouldn't it be nice to find some European statesmen/women for a change? Long time ago, Blair sought to portray himself as one, but he then got involved in colonial wars to please his masters. Brown too has already made clear that to him, Europe is just another semi-relevant club like the Commonwealth, and that his prime loyalty is to whomever puppet-master is pulling the strings from Washington. Where this Miliband guy belongs to I'm not sure but the UK hasn't produced great European leaders lately.
All this talk of Turkey being offered associate membership of the EU with free trade access as an "alternative" to full membership is without substance, as Turkey and the EU have had just such an arrangement for years. Turkey already has the closest relationship with the EU of any third country bar Norway and Iceland. None of the politicians who are campaigning for a "special relationship short of membership" have been able to articulate what this would entail in practice, as just about the only significant concession that the EU could offer - freedom of movement - is precisely what the anti-membership brigade are resisting.
So mr. Milliband wants to form the UN now?
Last time I checked we already have one, and its not working as it should (though it is working as designed)
I really am tired of so-called Europeans not knowing or understnding a thing about Turkey and having the nerve to post about its unstability, human rights etc. like a parrot, repeating what the media tells them. Have you ever been to Turkey? Then crossed the borders to say, Syria? Turkey is not a middle eastern country, it is a bridge. It is the country who defines itself not others. We define ourselves European because of our values. Don't you think giving women the right to suffrage and vote in 1930 (before many other EU countries of today-portugal, spain, france, italy) in a predominantly muslim country was not a western attitude? Plus geographical borders of Europe are subjective, it is not a continent. Otherwise how come Cyprus is in the EU? Isnt it better to work together towards stability and a better future than being an old grumpy sitting-in-the-corner EU?
Milliband's suggestion to expand the EU into Muslim-majority North Africa and the Middle East is naive and dangerous in the extreme.
Though it may be welcomed by many of the westernised, corrupt, rulers and the westernised, amoral, wealthy, so-called "elite" in those countries, it would almost certainly be seen by most of the ordinary people as merely a return of European imperialism and could ignite a jihad that would make today's terrorism problem seem like a tea party.
The EU should rather be encouraging Muslim countries to pursue democracy with a strong Islamic flavour, with the medium-term objective of developing moderate, Islamic-democratic institutions and governments, and the long-term objective of coming together in an Islamic Union in peaceful co-existence with the EU and USA.
I realise that most of your readers will greet my suggestions with incredulity - "Islamic and democracy, surely antithetical!", I hear them exclaim. But until Europe and the USA accept that Muslims must be given the time and space to develop moderate, democratic institutions from their own traditions, without having western concepts and values forced down their throats; until Europe and the USA learn to respect Islam as a powerful universal force for good - as knowledgeable Muslims do; and until Europe and the USA accept that they need to put right the wrongs they have done, and continue to do, to the Muslim world (including, and especially, the Israel/Palestine and the Kashmir problems), the present Clash of Civilisations can only intensify, with potentially catastrophic results.
Glyn # 31 you speak of the Muslims as if they were one people, with one culture and traditions. This even ignores that there is not a single Muslim religion, but variations upon a theme.
The same applies to the various Christians... if somebody started talking about uniting all the Christians into a Christian Union, they would be declared a nutcase.
A new Caliphate is not the answer. Rather one should accept that there are at least as many differences among Muslims as there are among Christians.
The rest of the arguments against including Muslim countires in the EU are simple fear, ignorance, and perhaps outright racism.
I think most countries hold a referendum before joining the EU, so I doubt it would look to North Africans as they are being invaded when they choose to join. Plus the rules for being in the EU are different from a colonised to master relationship.
When you look at the countries of North Africa it is at least conceivable that they could be ready to join the EU sometme in the future. Personally I can not see other countries in the Middle East doing the same any time soon if ever. As for Turkey, it is not ready to join the EU because it is not ready to change or accept that it is wrong... the whole extremeist attitudes the Turks have to the Armenian genocide or the right of Kurds to have independence are perfect examples of my point.
Regarding Mr Milliband`s speech.. How on `Earth` does he think that all of those extra people from around the `World` will be able to live and work in our tiny little `Country` that used to be known as `England` ?
It's shocking all that the EU is willing to go through so that it can compete economically and militarily with America. Soon enough there will be a union but it won't be European.
glyn r sparkes(#31) wrote:
"..until Europe and the USA learn to respect Islam as a powerful universal force for good - as knowledgeable Muslims do; and until Europe and the USA accept that they need to put right the wrongs they have done, and continue to do, to the Muslim world (including, and especially, the Israel/Palestine and the Kashmir problems), the present Clash of Civilisations can only intensify, with potentially catastrophic results."
I think you have the wrong end of the stick: Until Islam stops being an expansionist proselytising religion and reforms itself then, I'm afraid, a 'Clash of Civilisations' remains inevitable.
Having travelled in Russia and Ukraine,(I own a flat in Crimea),you can be sure Russia will never give away it's political control to any foreign body.Trade agreements yes.As for the nonsense of the middle-east and north Africa joining the EU.That would hasten the break-up of this union from within very quickly as the populace of proper EU nations rebelled against the influx of millions of Africans to their countries.Nigeria alone has 100 million.But then, who is this Miliband anyway ? A titanic political sage to rival Lenin,Marx,Thatcher or just a lucky public school boy with a nose for more noise than sense.
Rob #32, you have utterly failed to grasp most of my arguments.
Firstly, nowhere did I call for a new Caliphate, nor did I suggest that Muslims are part of some sort of homogeneous "hive" culture. However, I'm sure most people would agree that there is far more in common between the culture and traditions of, for example, Morocco, Egypt, Syria and Yemen (not least, the Arabic language) than there is between any of those countries and, for example, Britain, Spain, Poland or Greece (or, indeed, between most pairs of existing EU countries).
Secondly, the Muslim countries of North Africa and the Middle East are ruled by corrupt, wealthy, westernised "elites", whereas when the people of those countries are given anything approaching a free election, they invariably and overwhelmingly choose moderate Islamist parties, proving that Islamism - not liberal democracy - is the force that the ordinary people see as holding the promise of an end to corruption, oppression, injustice and inequality. However, the ruling "elites" almost never give their people any such opportunity, preferring instead to rig votes to keep themselves in power - how readily would they rig a referendum to join the EU if it was to their selfish benefit?
Thirdly, you seem to be unaware of the mounting frustration and outrage among the Turks at the increasingly patronising tone of the EU and the increasingly petty hoops they are being told they must jump through to "deserve" membership. Turks are increasingly turning against EU membership because they do indeed perceive a master-servant tone from the EU negotiators - how much more would Arabs, who, unlike the Turks, suffered colonisation, resent that.
Fourthly, if Turkey has to admit the "Armenian genocide" before joining the EU, why did not Greece and Bulgaria have to admit the "genocide" against Turks that they perpetrated when they gained independence and after WW1? Indeed, why did not Spain have to admit the "genocide" it perpetrated against the Moors in the 15th. century? Muslims claim many genocides have been perpetrated against them (as well as many other peoples) by European Christians (or are you a denier of genocides against Muslims?), so why is the spotlight on Turkey? And if Turkey has to give the Kurds independence, why did Spain not have to give the Basques independence, or Britain the Northern Ireland Catholics?
The fact is that the lens of European/Christian history and culture, through which the EU has been shaped, is significantly different from the lens of Arab/Muslim history and culture that has shaped North Africa and the Middle East, and ignoring this, or pretending it is not, is naive and extremely dangerous - as France discovered in Algeria, and the USA has discovered in Iraq.
i think north african and middle eastern countries need a real economic union like eu. otherwise westerners will continue to dream that new roman empire model.
Mete # 35... North African countries were part of european power structures ala the Roman Empire well before they were part of the current power structures. Europeans are still related to those peoples by blood to a significant extent...
... however, this is not a reconquista, and the current EU IS NOT the Roman Empire. If the EU wants them to join, but they do not, or prefer to join other unions, it is their choice. They are not going to be forced into it... at least some europeans will be happy if they do not join :)
Glyn my point was more along the lines that there are too much differences among the different groups of Muslims for them to form a union. The Arabic language is maybe unifying, or maybe a legacy of the past, it was imposed on the local people... but that was a LONG time ago... but not all Muslims speak Arabic as the mother-tongue.
If all you meant was the Middle East, there are still enough differences there to prevent the formation of an effective union.
A Caliphate, as advocated by some Islamic fundamentalists fits the description of a Muslim Union as you described.
Using the term genocide losely does not help anyone. I do not think there was a genocide against Turks by the Greeks or Bulgarians. However, generally speaking, my principle is that if it happened, you should not hide or deny it. The same goes for Turks or Greeks, or anybody else.
The spotlight is on Turkey because it wants to join the EU while having very different ideas on some fundamental issues defining the principles of the EU. So why does it want to join without sharing these values? Probably for economic reasons alone... and you can imagine why most people in the EU have a problem with this.
Yes, I am aware, Turks are getting frustrated with the process of joining the EU. This what I meant about Turks not being ready to accept some things while joining the EU. This is all part of saying that Turkey joining the EU at this time is a bad idea.
Good points on Basques and NI :)
I am not aware of any genocide against the Moors, apart from kicking out another invader although after a long time. Plus the Moors ended up getting unto themselves as they did unto others. It was a medieval war.
Specify a genocide against the Muslims that Christians did. I am not aware of any. Plenty of wars between the two though. Plus when you consider how many Christian groups disappeared and were invaded by the Muslims, there was at least cultural genocide against Christians by Muslism in the past. The same could be said on genocide against Hindus and Budhists during the invasion of India... the destruction of Budhism's influence, etc. I would not throw stones in a glass house on this point. Though this is getting a little silly because we are going hundreds of years in the past when people did not accept the concept of genocide... and the wars were conducted in those bloody ways by all sides. Should the Italians appologise for the Roman invasion of Gaul? Or the Iranians for invading Greece? Or the Turks for invading Europe and the Middle East? Mongolia to most of the rest of the World? Arabs and Turks for the slave trade against Europeans and Africans?... and so on... and so on... etc.
I am saying that North Africa, the Berbers, and those who consider themselves Arabs living there, have a LOT of shared history with Europe, and shared ancestors. Perhaps this is enough for both sides to extend the EU into those areas. It would be the choice of the PEOPLE not their corrupt or otherwise elites... this is why I spoke of countries getting a referendum on joining the EU, not just a decision for the elites.
As a long time student of Turkish affairs and a frequent visitor to that country I have to say there is no point of Turkey seeking membership in European Disunion.
It should instead create a Confederation of Turkic Republics with Ankara as its hub, combining huge resources (oil/gas) of Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan with Turkey's technological prowess and its 1 million strong army, leaving impotent EU at a mercy of USSR (in reconstruction).
Rob #23, 32 & 39, whatever the merits of your arguments, you should realise that you have fatally undermined them by your apparent obsession with blood ("blut"), race ("volk") and an EU for racially "acceptable" Europeans (i shudder to think what you might do with the tens of millions of racially "unacceptable" people who're already in the EU).
The Roman Empire is dead - and so are Adolf Hitler and Nazism - thank God. Let it go, man.
Rob #40, the reconquista was undoubtedly a genocide - i.e. a deliberate and sytematic destruction of an ethnic, religious or national group - by Christians against millions of Muslims; as were events in what is now Ukraine, the Crimea, and Circassian and Caucasian Russia in the 18th. and 19th. centuries; and in the Balkans during the late-19th./early-20th. centuries (reprised in Bosnia in the early 1990's for those who missed the earlier performances).
Your claim of multiple Muslim "genocides" against Christians, Hindus or Buddhists does not hold water, as there is no evidence of deliberate and systematic destruction - and the evidence is that the vast majority of Christians welcomed the Muslim armies and readily converted to Islam.
A Caliphate is not the same as an Islamic Union as i described it - a Caliphate would imply an authoritarian or even totalitarian government, while i clearly called for "democracy with a strong Islamic flavour".
With respect to "going hundreds of years in the past", you are the one who invoked the Roman Empire as your blueprint for the EU...
Glyn #42 and you are attacking a straw man you have created and not my arguments.
It is not fascims or racism to mention that peoples are related in a context of finding a common ground in a political union. You are also twisting this past a breaking point by suggesting that African countries in the EU in some way indicate racism on my part. I am not insulted because you are very far off base.
This is more so as you are calling for the creation of a modern day Caliphate. I can see how the idea of North African countries joing the EU may be anathema to the extremist Islamists, that would derail their own plans... but it is one more reason for the idea, NOT against it. Come to think of it, this may also be annoying to those on the Western side who are looking forward to the "clash of civilisations"... because then it becomes not a clash between Islam and Christianity, but a clash of values and ideas, not along religious lines.
The North African countries of the Berber sphere have a population about the same as Turkey without the problems associated with it, grounded in dreams and mirages of past glories. They make better addition to the EU.
The main obstacle to Turkey's membership is Turkey's extreme nationalism. Countries in the EU have settled their border disputes before joining and no other EU country or prospective EU country illegally occupies part of an EU country, as Turkey does in Cyprus. No other country has an army aimed at against another member state
. No other EU country has systematicaly exterminated, either by genocides, or progroms, or continuous harassment all other ethnc minorities. The list could go on and on.
I don't know what planet glyn r sparkes comes from to suggest genocides by Greece and Bulgaria against Turks in their liberation wars, but to set the record straight, it was the Turks who invaded and occupied their lands for over 400 years, the turks who would send troops into Christian villages to collect the fittest boys, who would be taken, brain-washed into islam and turned into an elite army corps(geni-tsari) to be sent against their parents and brothers. It was the Turks who instituted the "head tax"-right, the tax you pay to keep your head, without any real guarantees though. Should one go on? The other Balkan countries generally solved
minority issues via population exchanges. Just look at what has happened to remaining minorities of turkish origin in Greece and Bulgaria vs what has happened to Greek and Bulgarian minorities in Turkey, not just after WWI, but even today. Look at the Kurds: They're labelled terrorist, just like the Greek and Bulgarian rebels were labelled terrorists and just like George Washington was a terrorist to the british.
Trying to stop demographic evolution is like throwing sand in the wind. In the end its impossible. History has shown this over and over again. To the Romans the barbarians to the north would never modernize but they did. Every entity, nation, system, that tries enforce exclusivity will in the end fail ,its just a matter of time. The average European is getting old FAST. There are no Swiss people to work the nursing homes or fast food restaurants and so forth. Strange to think of a country like Denmark being multi-racial but when there are no Danes to do much of the menial work in comes immigrants. That is a reality. The painful pill Europeans must swallow is an integrated world and the realization that peoples who seem backwards will not always remain that way. Societies who embrace change and try to adapt will survive. It won't be easy but with European birthrates staggeringly low, MORE immigrants will be arriving and best to educate these people in the ways of democracy and western ideals. These immigrants will without a doubt be taking care of you in a nursing home in your old age. Does Germany,France, or Britain think they have a future when their birthrates barely approach 1.1. Even that 1.1 is made up of immigrant births. Germany's population will go into freefall by 2025. Russia from 110 million to 80 million , the list goes on. 40% of babies born in London are not British. Europe is OLD. The faster you adjust to this reality the better off you'll all be.
Well, on such a topic much can be said,but my comments are a bit different in gist,as they come from the Mediteranean where we remember history.
Only in recent times has it been that immigrants are not assimilated into the religion and culture of the land/people they live with. Invaders were also either assimilators or assimilated, throughout history, leading to some sort of tolerance and equilibrium in populations and geographical areas. We now have global communication. That actualy makes it very difficult to assimilate and what took 100-200 years in the past now might not happen for many more centuries. It might even create more tension and wars than ever known in the past. But to get things right here,the climatic and geographical areas delineate division and expansions,since ancient years. Who says I have much to say to a Dane,German or Scot? I am Greek and I have much more in common culturaly with an Italian,a Libyan,an Egyptian,a Lebanese or even a coastal area Turk.They happen to not only share the same cultural background (not religion though) as well as genes(the spread of the Thalassaemia Genes is well documented- we all come from common ancestors). The common historical events that shaped the mediteranean basin for the last 3 + millenia and the common ways of life have left more bridges than divides. And religion does not have much to divide,it is only northern Europeans who consider muslims as a danger, as they have not lived side by side, in the same communities, in tolerance with them for hundreds of years.One must not forget that the muslims of the countries of the mediteranean were christians prior to muslims, followers of the ancient religions prior to that and religious tolerance, diplomacy and a high standard of civilisation has always existed here, not in the Northern countries. Therefore, what is the problem of accepting an oppening of the EU to this part of the world? Only economic. Not a big cultural problem in these parts. Dear "northern europeans" : Come to Greece, to see how locals accept moslems (also how many of them still assimilate into Greek society from the first generation, follow Christianity,even without marrying locals, especialy Albanians,Syrians and Egyptians). I think EU of the Mediteranean and EU of the North are the future divisions to appear! What with global warming, we and Mediteranean Non Arabs and Arabs will be the invaders of the north soon.Power strugle to keep migration under control will expand the EU this way. Whoever/whichever people maintain contact with their culture will be the assimilator in a thousand years time.(Just a different viewpoint to come accross).
How come Greece is a part of EU ???
growing Racism in Greece and the discrimination of non-Orthodox religious minorities in the country is getting worse..!
Human rights groups say Greece has one of the worst records in the European Union for racism against ethnic minorities.
According to Panayote Dimitras, spokesman of the anti-racism campaign group the Greek Helsinki Monitor, racism in Greece is deep-rooted.
"Greek national culture is one that believes there is a superiority of the Greek nation and when you think like this about yourself it is very easy to think that the others are inferior," he says.
and today Discriminations and Racism against immigrants, ethnic Albanians, Macedonians, Bulgarians, Ethnic Turks, Jews and muslims is a big problem in Greece...
if you are a non orthodox and want to practice your own religion or build your own temple , you will be forced to step down..!
and again if you are a Turk, Albanian etc. you will not be allowed to speak or use your own language freely
Dear Jan Dani...I do not think you got the point of my posting.I am not Greek Orthodox, I am Church of England, half Greek, half English parentage.Your posting explains exactly what is meant about Nothern European individuals not understanding cultures of the Mediteranean,they are a world appart in thinking.As a matter of fact in the island of Syros, where I originate from, half the Greek population is Roman Catholic.The culture is Greek, it is dominant. Religious and ethnic assimilation is not an issue in this country, it happens,through the centuries, peacefully in this part of the world,due to dominant culture. People are accepting of others religions and ethnic groups, and I think one can just use references from respected modern day historians e.g.re:Greek Jews(the only European country that protected them-See Mazower),Greek Moslems, see statistics as oposed to christians in Turkey since the 1923 treaty on the exchange of populations, Slavic Macedonia look at lingustic and hostorical data etc etc.If you have heard of any sort of religious or other persecution in modern Greece,you must be grossly missinformed. The point I was trying to make and which probably escaped you , is that in the future there will be a North and SOuth Europe divide. Due to cultural difference, not religious.No real understanding between the northern and southern Europeans.The south is expanding already, whether the north realises it or not...immigrants from all over...(I can asure you that most Greeks are far more able to have meaningfull friendships with a Turk than an Englishman. Same culture (approx), religion not an issue).
I hope this has clarified the point, which was not racist and not nationalistic.
Greece not only doesn't meet the economic criteria for EU or NATO membership, but it neither meets the political criteria.
There are large ethnic minorities living in Greece (Macedonians, Turks, Albanians, Roma, Vlach) that are forbidden from even identifying with their respective minority groups.
The Macedonians and Turks living in Greece, for example, were forced to changed their own personal names into Greek sounding names and are not allowed to change them back.
This is only one example of the systematic human rights violations perpetrated on the ethnic Macedonians, Turks and others living in Greece.
And these are very well documented by the Council of Europe, the OSCE, the Greek Helsinki Monitor and the US State Department.
Rather than Greece trying to change it's neighbours names, it should cease all human rights violations in relation to the minorities living within its own borders
"Does Germany,France, or Britain think they have a future when their birthrates barely approach 1.1. Even that 1.1 is made up of immigrant births. Germany's population will go into freefall by 2025. Russia from 110 million to 80 million , the list goes on." [#46]
Don't worry! The shortfall in Russia is already being made up for by illegal Manchurian immigrants from China - PRC has 1.4 billion mouths to feed, high birth rate and growing shortage of Lebensraum- and Arabs (who also have a very high birth rate) are already taking care of Old Europe's shrinking population.
[in UK Pakistanis are doing ditto according to the most recent statistics]
So things are looking up! ;-)
Re #45, etc.
Turkey does not occupy "an EU member state" (there are no Turkish troops in the Greek part of that speck of land next to Beirut), and its Turkish part is not an EU member.
Turkish army intervened in Cyprus to stop a slaughter of its Turkish population during a violent attempt to annex the island into Greece on orders of a military junta in Athens.
It's hard to imagine that somebody really wouldn't know what ENOSIS was or couldn't even Google it.
P.S. If Greeks think that a fact that an adjacent NATO ally has a powerful army capable of actual combat constitutes a problem, they may certainly leave the alliance to which they've contributed militarily next to nothing anyway.