• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Turkey does not want NATO missile defense to specifically target Iran

Demon of Light

Bohemian Revolutionary
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
5,095
Reaction score
1,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Ankara's condition for its endorsement of a Europe-wide missile defence shield, to be agreed by Nato leaders in Lisbon on 19 November, is for Iran not to be specifically mentioned as a threat.

"We do not see any threat from any of our neighbouring countries, whether it is Iran, Russia, Syria or others," Turkish foreign minister Ahmet Davutoglu said during the weekend as he was visiting China.

"I state quite clearly that Turkey will not be a frontal or flanking country [of the Nato missile shield] and we do not want to see again a zone of the Cold War and its psychology in our region," he added, noting that any Nato shield should be developed along these principles.
Source: EU Observer

I am curious what Turkey thinks this is a defense from if not countries like Iran, Russia, or Syria. Perhaps it does not perceive a threat from these countries, but if other members do then it is part of Turkey's obligation as a member of NATO to see them as potentially posing a threat as well.
 

MKULTRABOY

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
10,621
Reaction score
2,104
Location
In your dreams...
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
This is turd. They wish to commit Turkey to a test of the trans atlantic military community while it was not accepted into the EU. NATO is a front for American hegemony and Iran is being persecuted by a double standard. The ability to annihilate Iran's people is no measure of security in an age of terror. Bunk says I... humbug!
 

CJ 2.0

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
5,418
Reaction score
1,903
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
This is turd. They wish to commit Turkey to a test of the trans atlantic military community while it was not accepted into the EU. NATO is a front for American hegemony and Iran is being persecuted by a double standard. The ability to annihilate Iran's people is no measure of security in an age of terror. Bunk says I... humbug!
I'm sorry, what?

How is a defensive missle shield designed to prevent missles from hitting population centres "the ability to annihilate Iran's people", and how do you even remotely think that is an object of NATO?

I get it may have something to do with Marxism, and may be related to the typographical error in your sig, but other than that, I'm straining to see a connection.
 

Demon of Light

Bohemian Revolutionary
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
5,095
Reaction score
1,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
This is turd. They wish to commit Turkey to a test of the trans atlantic military community while it was not accepted into the EU. NATO is a front for American hegemony and Iran is being persecuted by a double standard. The ability to annihilate Iran's people is no measure of security in an age of terror. Bunk says I... humbug!


So, uh, I am just going to assume you are being for realz here and tell you that there is absolutely no way a missile defense system can be used to annihilate anyone. If Turkey doesn't like that other NATO members consider Iran a threat that needs to be defended against then they can politely excuse themselves from the organization.

I am not disagreeing with the rest of what you said since I think you are generally correct about the rest, but that does not mean any country or group of countries should not be allowed to build up a defense against countries they perceive as a threat.
 

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,691
Reaction score
9,981
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
...there is absolutely no way a missile defense system can be used to annihilate anyone.
Technically accurate. FWIW, there is actually a line of counterargument. It goes as follows: Currently, vulnerability to widespread Iranian retaliation may be serving to deter a surprise attack against Iran. However, if a missile defense system can substantially reduce vulnerability to Iranian retaliation, that could undermine Iran's capacity to deter a surprise attack. In such a case, the adverse consequences of a surprise attack would be mitigated as Iran's retaliatory capacity would be reduced by the missile defense system and, under such a situation, prospects for a surprise attack against Iran would be increased (barring no changes in Iran's nuclear policy). I believe Russia had concerns that NATO defense systems could undermine Russia's deterrent capacity at the time NATO was previously considered locating even limited missile defense considerations in Eastern Europe. Russia's worry was that a limited system could be ramped up in the future.

If Turkey doesn't like that other NATO members consider Iran a threat that needs to be defended against then they can politely excuse themselves from the organization.
I agree. There is a lowest common denominator so to speak that Turkey needs to support if it is to remain part of the NATO alliance. Even if Turkey perceives no threat from Iran, the majority of NATO members might. If Turkey is to remain in the alliance, it needs to be willing to address those members' needs, even if such an approach complicates its recent warming of relations with Iran.
 

Demon of Light

Bohemian Revolutionary
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
5,095
Reaction score
1,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Technically accurate. FWIW, there is actually a line of counterargument. It goes as follows: Currently, vulnerability to widespread Iranian retaliation may be serving to deter a surprise attack against Iran. However, if a missile defense system can substantially reduce vulnerability to Iranian retaliation, that could undermine Iran's capacity to deter a surprise attack. In such a case, the adverse consequences of a surprise attack would be mitigated as Iran's retaliatory capacity would be reduced by the missile defense system and, under such a situation, prospects for a surprise attack against Iran would be increased (barring no changes in Iran's nuclear policy). I believe Russia had concerns that NATO defense systems could undermine Russia's deterrent capacity at the time NATO was previously considered locating even limited missile defense considerations in Eastern Europe. Russia's worry was that a limited system could be ramped up in the future.
I don't buy that rationale. It is kind of like saying that you should not wear a kevlar vest because it makes you more likely to shoot someone. These are not offensive weapons and they do not improve our capacity to attack a country. All they do is protect us and our allies from attack. While a missile defense can be positioned in such a manner as to actually amount to offensive weaponry, namely putting it close enough to shoot down enemy aircraft that are still in enemy airspace, this is not the case here.

A missile defense is not going to make an attack on Iran more likely because ultimately its primary means of retaliation will be completely different and any good leader will know that no missile defense is perfect anyway.
 

kaya'08

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 25, 2008
Messages
6,363
Reaction score
1,318
Location
British Turk
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
No official in the government ever said that they did not want the missile defense shield.
In fact the FM has made it clear that if there where to be a missile defense shield, it would need to cover all NATO allies and all of Turkey, not just some of it. And it would need to be more discrete in terms of who it was targeting - Turkey is trying to align itself into an important position with Iran in the hopes it can gain the trust of the Iranian government so that it may mediate between Iran and the West.

Relations with Syria have always been bumpy and it was less than 15 years ago that they where ready to knock heads in a war. Turkey has finally began opening up from its self imposed regional isolation rather than regarding them as threats to sovereign. Its a delicate balance and as these countries share a border with Turkey, it is important that Turkey does what it can to avoid the distrust and tensions we saw all those years ago. At the end of the day Turkey is on the forefront of the tensions and no other NATO ally is in the strategic position that Turkey has inherited. Thus one would act wisely to see this sensitive issue from Turkey's own perspective.

If you visit Hrriyet Daily News and Economic Review, Bringing you Turkish Daily News and look for the recent article on the defense shield you will notice that comments coming from the foreign ministry actually indicates that they look upon these plans with a favorable eye.

You have to remember that Turkey is an integral part of NATO, maintaining the second largest army within the organization. It is foolish and rash to conclude Turkey should withdraw from NATO (as quoted by demon light). It shows an ignorance to Turkey's point of view. Considering America doesn't share a border with these Middle Eastern nations and Turkey does maybe one should look twice at the impacts these will have on Turkey that those in the far West will remain enclosed to.
 

washunut

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
11,483
Reaction score
3,294
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
No official in the government ever said that they did not want the missile defense shield.
In fact the FM has made it clear that if there where to be a missile defense shield, it would need to cover all NATO allies and all of Turkey, not just some of it. And it would need to be more discrete in terms of who it was targeting - Turkey is trying to align itself into an important position with Iran in the hopes it can gain the trust of the Iranian government so that it may mediate between Iran and the West.

Relations with Syria have always been bumpy and it was less than 15 years ago that they where ready to knock heads in a war. Turkey has finally began opening up from its self imposed regional isolation rather than regarding them as threats to sovereign. Its a delicate balance and as these countries share a border with Turkey, it is important that Turkey does what it can to avoid the distrust and tensions we saw all those years ago. At the end of the day Turkey is on the forefront of the tensions and no other NATO ally is in the strategic position that Turkey has inherited. Thus one would act wisely to see this sensitive issue from Turkey's own perspective.

If you visit Hrriyet Daily News and Economic Review, Bringing you Turkish Daily News and look for the recent article on the defense shield you will notice that comments coming from the foreign ministry actually indicates that they look upon these plans with a favorable eye.

You have to remember that Turkey is an integral part of NATO, maintaining the second largest army within the organization. It is foolish and rash to conclude Turkey should withdraw from NATO (as quoted by demon light). It shows an ignorance to Turkey's point of view. Considering America doesn't share a border with these Middle Eastern nations and Turkey does maybe one should look twice at the impacts these will have on Turkey that those in the far West will remain enclosed to.
I no longer is the value of NATO for America. Let the Turks figure out what they want to do as a middle shield on their own.
 

Demon of Light

Bohemian Revolutionary
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
5,095
Reaction score
1,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
No official in the government ever said that they did not want the missile defense shield.
In fact the FM has made it clear that if there where to be a missile defense shield, it would need to cover all NATO allies and all of Turkey, not just some of it. And it would need to be more discrete in terms of who it was targeting - Turkey is trying to align itself into an important position with Iran in the hopes it can gain the trust of the Iranian government so that it may mediate between Iran and the West.

Relations with Syria have always been bumpy and it was less than 15 years ago that they where ready to knock heads in a war. Turkey has finally began opening up from its self imposed regional isolation rather than regarding them as threats to sovereign. Its a delicate balance and as these countries share a border with Turkey, it is important that Turkey does what it can to avoid the distrust and tensions we saw all those years ago. At the end of the day Turkey is on the forefront of the tensions and no other NATO ally is in the strategic position that Turkey has inherited. Thus one would act wisely to see this sensitive issue from Turkey's own perspective.

If you visit Hrriyet Daily News and Economic Review, Bringing you Turkish Daily News and look for the recent article on the defense shield you will notice that comments coming from the foreign ministry actually indicates that they look upon these plans with a favorable eye.

You have to remember that Turkey is an integral part of NATO, maintaining the second largest army within the organization. It is foolish and rash to conclude Turkey should withdraw from NATO (as quoted by demon light). It shows an ignorance to Turkey's point of view. Considering America doesn't share a border with these Middle Eastern nations and Turkey does maybe one should look twice at the impacts these will have on Turkey that those in the far West will remain enclosed to.
I do not think it is that simple. Turkey is doing more than trying to make itself an intermediary. A number of developments are suggestive of something more serious than that. What is happening is a strategic shift away from the West and towards the East namely towards Russia and Iran. I do not think it is going to make a difference if Secularists or Islamists are in power, the only thing that might change is the focus of the shift.
 

washunut

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
11,483
Reaction score
3,294
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
No official in the government ever said that they did not want the missile defense shield.
In fact the FM has made it clear that if there where to be a missile defense shield, it would need to cover all NATO allies and all of Turkey, not just some of it. And it would need to be more discrete in terms of who it was targeting - Turkey is trying to align itself into an important position with Iran in the hopes it can gain the trust of the Iranian government so that it may mediate between Iran and the West.

Relations with Syria have always been bumpy and it was less than 15 years ago that they where ready to knock heads in a war. Turkey has finally began opening up from its self imposed regional isolation rather than regarding them as threats to sovereign. Its a delicate balance and as these countries share a border with Turkey, it is important that Turkey does what it can to avoid the distrust and tensions we saw all those years ago. At the end of the day Turkey is on the forefront of the tensions and no other NATO ally is in the strategic position that Turkey has inherited. Thus one would act wisely to see this sensitive issue from Turkey's own perspective.

If you visit Hrriyet Daily News and Economic Review, Bringing you Turkish Daily News and look for the recent article on the defense shield you will notice that comments coming from the foreign ministry actually indicates that they look upon these plans with a favorable eye.

You have to remember that Turkey is an integral part of NATO, maintaining the second largest army within the organization. It is foolish and rash to conclude Turkey should withdraw from NATO (as quoted by demon light). It shows an ignorance to Turkey's point of view. Considering America doesn't share a border with these Middle Eastern nations and Turkey does maybe one should look twice at the impacts these will have on Turkey that those in the far West will remain enclosed to.
Let's remember that it was Turkey that at the last minute refused to allow U.S. troops to enter Iraq through their country causing major problems and probably additional deaths of U.S. troops.

Also having a large number of army troops has proven in several modern wars to be irrelevant.

Last NATO has to remember that Turkey is moving into a new sphere. Sharing military technology and intelligence could prove to be a major mistake.
 

MKULTRABOY

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
10,621
Reaction score
2,104
Location
In your dreams...
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
SO yeah wiki says they're gunna yooze lasers to shoot the missiles down in the first paragraph and that missile defense doesnt seem to have been successfully implemented anywhere either. I havent heard of it in the nuclear deterrence theory in the international security classes im taking. I just assumed they were being real about missile defense and calculating a sufficient deterrent to prevent Iran from attacking. Meaning possessing the capability of destroying enough of Iran to prevent an attack. Sorry if deterrence theory in international security class confused me. You cant go into nuclear defense without going into the grey line fuzzy theoretical crap. It sounds like a bunk idea to reallocate money to defense and make friends by alienating enemies.
 
Last edited:

kaya'08

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 25, 2008
Messages
6,363
Reaction score
1,318
Location
British Turk
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I do not think it is that simple. Turkey is doing more than trying to make itself an intermediary. A number of developments are suggestive of something more serious than that. What is happening is a strategic shift away from the West and towards the East namely towards Russia and Iran. I do not think it is going to make a difference if Secularists or Islamists are in power, the only thing that might change is the focus of the shift.
Turkey has a greater strategic obligation to "watch its footing" when it comes to policies regarding its neighbors - simply because it is on the forefront of the fight. Turkey shares a border with these nations, and it always will do. Its a crime to suggest Turkey can make the same foreign policy decisions against its neighbours as freely as those in Western Europe or the US (and then question its loyalty when it does not). Turkey has come to terms with its historical mistrust of Iranian/Arab nations and has instead decided to embark on a course of "open diplomacy". This approach that you oppose has created regional stability, greater regional prosperity through cooperation and increased trade and a Middle East that looks less like it wants to collapse in on itself.
Your view of "Turkey shifting axis" is Turkey deciding that it no longer wishes to ignore the East, and engage with both sides. Strategically it is a wise choice to make. If the point of NATO is to protect European interests from foreign instability, than Turkey has been at the forefront of this fight.

What's more, is people like to use the recent state of Turkish-Israel relations as a "litmus" test for Turkey's axis. Turkey shares the exact same stance on Israel as Britain and Greece (in fact, Greece has always been historically much more pro-Arab than any other nation in Europe, and Britain recently had a legal case that would brand some Israeli officials as "war criminals"). The only difference is Turkey is capable of making a political statement and stand as an independent nation unlike Greece and the UK who prefer to throw quiet tantrums in the corner, just quiet enough for the US to ignore. This stance has been the moving factor of current healthy Turkey-Arab political and trade relations.

Turkey has progressed substantially in terms of transparency, equality and democracy. Its wanting to end decades of tumulus relationships and tensions with its neighbors DOES shows a shift in policy - greater diplomacy, but not a shift in axis. It no longer wishes to embark on its continued self-imposed isolation from the East.

Let's remember that it was Turkey that at the last minute refused to allow U.S. troops to enter Iraq through their country causing major problems and probably additional deaths of U.S. troops.
Unfortunately the democratic process in Turkey requires the approval of parliament to allow foreign troops to use Turkish soil. The democratic process voted against the idea of using Turkish territory to participate in the Iraq war. If you do not like the democratic process, that's tough. But considering the political mess the Iraq war turned out to be, i do not think its that much of a bad thing that Turkey's name will not go down in history as having played an active part in the invasion of Iraq.

Also having a large number of army troops has proven in several modern wars to be irrelevant.

Last NATO has to remember that Turkey is moving into a new sphere. Sharing military technology and intelligence could prove to be a major mistake.
Refer to first paragraph.
 
Last edited:

Wiseone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,177
Reaction score
7,550
Location
Ft. Campbell, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Turkey has been trying to become part of Europe for decades and even joined NATO partly to achieve that goal. However by Europeans and by the NATO alliance its mostly been treated as a second class country, not as important as the others, and nice to have around when its needed but otherwise generally not welcome.

So after decades Turkey is finally starting to think "Well if the Europeans don't want us in their regional bloc, maybe we should start forming one and getting cozier with our other neighbors in the Middle East." Why are people surprised? Do people honestly expect a growing nation in both economic and military terms to be content picking up whatever crumbs Europe throws its way? I mean its been in some level of negotiation for EU membership for decades only to be thrown a small scrap whenever it gets a little rowdy to keep it interested but never let it in. You've also got people like French Pres. Sarkozy saying "Let's be honest, its never going to happen" the whole time as well.
 

washunut

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
11,483
Reaction score
3,294
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Turkey has a greater strategic obligation to "watch its footing" when it comes to policies regarding its neighbors - simply because it is on the forefront of the fight. Turkey shares a border with these nations, and it always will do. Its a crime to suggest Turkey can make the same foreign policy decisions against its neighbours as freely as those in Western Europe or the US (and then question its loyalty when it does not). Turkey has come to terms with its historical mistrust of Iranian/Arab nations and has instead decided to embark on a course of "open diplomacy". This approach that you oppose has created regional stability, greater regional prosperity through cooperation and increased trade and a Middle East that looks less like it wants to collapse in on itself.
Your view of "Turkey shifting axis" is Turkey deciding that it no longer wishes to ignore the East, and engage with both sides. Strategically it is a wise choice to make. If the point of NATO is to protect European interests from foreign instability, than Turkey has been at the forefront of this fight.

What's more, is people like to use the recent state of Turkish-Israel relations as a "litmus" test for Turkey's axis. Turkey shares the exact same stance on Israel as Britain and Greece (in fact, Greece has always been historically much more pro-Arab than any other nation in Europe, and Britain recently had a legal case that would brand some Israeli officials as "war criminals"). The only difference is Turkey is capable of making a political statement and stand as an independent nation unlike Greece and the UK who prefer to throw quiet tantrums in the corner, just quiet enough for the US to ignore. This stance has been the moving factor of current healthy Turkey-Arab political and trade relations.

Turkey has progressed substantially in terms of transparency, equality and democracy. Its wanting to end decades of tumulus relationships and tensions with its neighbors DOES shows a shift in policy - greater diplomacy, but not a shift in axis. It no longer wishes to embark on its continued self-imposed isolation from the East.



Unfortunately the democratic process in Turkey requires the approval of parliament to allow foreign troops to use Turkish soil. The democratic process voted against the idea of using Turkish territory to participate in the Iraq war. If you do not like the democratic process, that's tough. But considering the political mess the Iraq war turned out to be, i do not think its that much of a bad thing that Turkey's name will not go down in history as having played an active part in the invasion of Iraq.



Refer to first paragraph.
I have no problem with having a democratic process in Turkey whatever that means in a country like that. My problem is that they left a division of he U.S. army hung up. If they were not going to allow the troops to move through it would have been better to let the U.S. know in advance.

Sort of like what a true ally would do.

As America has to cut back where we do things, we just can't afford it anymore. Turkey should be high on our list to stop wasting any ebergy on.
 

kaya'08

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 25, 2008
Messages
6,363
Reaction score
1,318
Location
British Turk
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I have no problem with having a democratic process in Turkey whatever that means in a country like that.
I would be most pleased if you could elaborate on this comment. :roll:

My problem is that they left a division of he U.S. army hung up. If they were not going to allow the troops to move through it would have been better to let the U.S. know in advance.
The Turkish authorities are not psychic. If we knew for sure the legislation was going to die in parliament we would have told the US not to waste their time, but we did not. It was made clear however, through both Foreign ministry concerns and the media, that the bill would face heavy opposition in parliament. That is precisely what happened.
 

washunut

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
11,483
Reaction score
3,294
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I would be most pleased if you could elaborate on this comment. :roll:


.
Simply that I do not know much about how the Turkish government works. Nothing sinister nor a jab.
 

Demon of Light

Bohemian Revolutionary
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
5,095
Reaction score
1,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Turkey has a greater strategic obligation to "watch its footing" when it comes to policies regarding its neighbors - simply because it is on the forefront of the fight. Turkey shares a border with these nations, and it always will do. Its a crime to suggest Turkey can make the same foreign policy decisions against its neighbours as freely as those in Western Europe or the US (and then question its loyalty when it does not). Turkey has come to terms with its historical mistrust of Iranian/Arab nations and has instead decided to embark on a course of "open diplomacy". This approach that you oppose has created regional stability, greater regional prosperity through cooperation and increased trade and a Middle East that looks less like it wants to collapse in on itself.
Your view of "Turkey shifting axis" is Turkey deciding that it no longer wishes to ignore the East, and engage with both sides. Strategically it is a wise choice to make. If the point of NATO is to protect European interests from foreign instability, than Turkey has been at the forefront of this fight.

What's more, is people like to use the recent state of Turkish-Israel relations as a "litmus" test for Turkey's axis. Turkey shares the exact same stance on Israel as Britain and Greece (in fact, Greece has always been historically much more pro-Arab than any other nation in Europe, and Britain recently had a legal case that would brand some Israeli officials as "war criminals"). The only difference is Turkey is capable of making a political statement and stand as an independent nation unlike Greece and the UK who prefer to throw quiet tantrums in the corner, just quiet enough for the US to ignore. This stance has been the moving factor of current healthy Turkey-Arab political and trade relations.

Turkey has progressed substantially in terms of transparency, equality and democracy. Its wanting to end decades of tumulus relationships and tensions with its neighbors DOES shows a shift in policy - greater diplomacy, but not a shift in axis. It no longer wishes to embark on its continued self-imposed isolation from the East.
I think you have an overly rosy view of what is going on with Turkey right now. What you perceive as a shift to "open diplomacy" is just the intermediary period of this shift to the East. I would not say I oppose such a shift, though I think it creates potential for an unstable situation in the region.
 

kaya'08

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 25, 2008
Messages
6,363
Reaction score
1,318
Location
British Turk
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I think you have an overly rosy view of what is going on with Turkey right now. What you perceive as a shift to "open diplomacy" is just the intermediary period of this shift to the East. I would not say I oppose such a shift, though I think it creates potential for an unstable situation in the region.
I respect your opinion but i think its more of a realistic stance than it is an "overly rosey" one. I think because the West isn't used to Turkey standing on its own two feet, engaging with the East or taking any care or consideration for the sensitivies of the East and its getting people nervous over absolutely nothing.

As a country with an increasing political and economical clout, the Republic can no longer fit inside its cacoon and it is making that transition to being merely a nation that follows along with allied policies to a nation that has the capability of projecting much influence and shaping the region in its own way. Just because Turkey no longer needs to follow its allies on a dog leash but can now walk itself, it doesn't mean its changing "teams".
 

CJ 2.0

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
5,418
Reaction score
1,903
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I respect your opinion but i think its more of a realistic stance than it is an "overly rosey" one. I think because the West isn't used to Turkey standing on its own two feet, engaging with the East or taking any care or consideration for the sensitivies of the East and its getting people nervous over absolutely nothing.

As a country with an increasing political and economical clout, the Republic can no longer fit inside its cacoon and it is making that transition to being merely a nation that follows along with allied policies to a nation that has the capability of projecting much influence and shaping the region in its own way. Just because Turkey no longer needs to follow its allies on a dog leash but can now walk itself, it doesn't mean its changing "teams".
No, but it is changing teams. Quite aside from whether this or that particular practice means it is changing teams.

This was a conscious decision of its leadership a while back, and they will continue to drift until the change is complete. And sure, throw in some nationalist "dog on leash" type of junk, but in reality the shift is not even remnotely positive, either for the people in Turkey or anywhere else. What you are seeing is a leadership which has for a while now been irevokably leading Turkey and its people down the wrong path. Which the people follow to the long-term peril of their society.

Just my opinion, of course, but Islamism and Islamist allies on the one hand and economic prosperity and civil liberties on the other tend not to do very well together. But sure, justify this by increasing trade opportunities in a tiny market that shows no real prospects of significant advancement (there ain't gonna be any "Asian Tigers" coming out of the cesspool of backwards corrupt dictatorship states in the Arab world anytime soon), and by the fact that Europe hasn't been totally welcoming, but also recognize that this is doing Turkey and its people a profound disservice.
 

Demon of Light

Bohemian Revolutionary
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
5,095
Reaction score
1,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I respect your opinion but i think its more of a realistic stance than it is an "overly rosey" one. I think because the West isn't used to Turkey standing on its own two feet, engaging with the East or taking any care or consideration for the sensitivies of the East and its getting people nervous over absolutely nothing.

As a country with an increasing political and economical clout, the Republic can no longer fit inside its cacoon and it is making that transition to being merely a nation that follows along with allied policies to a nation that has the capability of projecting much influence and shaping the region in its own way. Just because Turkey no longer needs to follow its allies on a dog leash but can now walk itself, it doesn't mean its changing "teams".
I would not argue that a country simply being more independent is the same as changing alliances. Pakistan has often been more independent in its policies, but that does not mean they are on another side. Some countries make a habit of balancing relations between two major powers, but that is just not how things are playing out with Turkey.

On some level it is the fault of the West and on some level it is just a natural result of domestic and regional politics. Turkey has grown more hostile towards the West and its allies while becoming more accommodating towards the Eastern powers.
 

William Rea

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2010
Messages
8,949
Reaction score
2,231
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
I would not argue that a country simply being more independent is the same as changing alliances. Pakistan has often been more independent in its policies, but that does not mean they are on another side. Some countries make a habit of balancing relations between two major powers, but that is just not how things are playing out with Turkey.

On some level it is the fault of the West and on some level it is just a natural result of domestic and regional politics. Turkey has grown more hostile towards the West and its allies while becoming more accommodating towards the Eastern powers.
A country serving it's own national interest, surely not.

It would be irrational to believe that just as the West might perceive Turkey as a strategically important zone by coincidence of geography then Middle Eastern countries might also see the same in reverse. It is a totally Westcentric worldview. Why would Turkey not use that in it's national interest?
 

kaya'08

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 25, 2008
Messages
6,363
Reaction score
1,318
Location
British Turk
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
No, but it is changing teams. Quite aside from whether this or that particular practice means it is changing teams.

This was a conscious decision of its leadership a while back, and they will continue to drift until the change is complete. And sure, throw in some nationalist "dog on leash" type of junk, but in reality the shift is not even remnotely positive, either for the people in Turkey or anywhere else. What you are seeing is a leadership which has for a while now been irevokably leading Turkey and its people down the wrong path. Which the people follow to the long-term peril of their society.
And can you give examples of Erdogan leading Turkey down the "wrong path"? He certainly has very conservative views but up until now he has expanded Democracy more than what it was under any previous leadership with the exception of the founding father.

I certainly do regard Erdogan as a threat to Turkish secularism but his ability to change Turkey into "Iran" is politically limited and such comparisons are hyperbole and nothing more.
 

kaya'08

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 25, 2008
Messages
6,363
Reaction score
1,318
Location
British Turk
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
On some level it is the fault of the West and on some level it is just a natural result of domestic and regional politics. Turkey has grown more hostile towards the West and its allies while becoming more accommodating towards the Eastern powers.
Indeed, Europe is to blame for Turkey's policy of "exploring" the East which is making some in the West uncomfortable. I wouldn't say it is a natural result of domestic and regional politics but rather the result of continued rejection of Turkey by the family it has spent its 100 year life time seeking to join.
If the doors of one club are closed, Turkey will naturally look towards other clubs that will welcome it, once all other paths have been exhausted. But i think this is a long shot vision of Turkey decades down the line if the European Union fails to readjust its policies.

If the EU had accepted Turkey in 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2005......what would Turkey be today?
And while Greece threatens to bring the entire Eurozone down, deceives the union, continues on its path of recession and succumbs itself to left wing terrorism, why does Turkey still find itself knocking at the big blue doors?

America is not to blame. The US has done everything it can to include Turkey both politically and economically, but the EU is the major factor here, and the EU is the one that has failed Turkey. But the EU always was a xenephobic and discriminative organization.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom