Originally posted by Anders the White
No Shariff wasn´t an angel. But still he was, as you say, an overwhelming_elected leader of the country. He was ousted by a military coup.
Should any legally elected head of government in any of the three democratic countries of which I am a citizen, dismantle one by one eevery institution able to check his power, and thus dismantle demcoracy, I'd be hoping
the military does its duty and ousts the elected hack.
Now what is more importent: A government that supports US or democracy?
A democracy should be preferred, as it's shown it's more beneficial to deal with, on the long term.
In the absence or unavalaibility of democracy, better a dictator more like Anwar al-Sadat or King Hussain than one closer to Hafeth al-Assad or Saddam Hussain.
Personally, I believe demcoracies should start articulating a more coordinated global policy, aiming at fostering stability, development, and democracy as much as possible. But that'll have to wait till I make my coordinated coups in several of the main G7 powerhouses.
Turkmenistan have all the potential to become the new Iraq. Its rather scary to read about the country since it sounds like iraq twenty years ago. And up until the need for runways in the war against Afghanistan the country was becoming more and more isolated from international relations as an answer to the conditions in the country.
Turkmenistan, like most of its fellow former Soviet Stans, is basically the same local party bosses who fashioned themselves democratic leaders of the people. It seems that following the failed 1991 communist oldtimers' coup, the Stans hastily seceded form the Union to avoid the same democratisation that was taking place in russia at the time.
Many of them have the potential to become quite nasty. So they should, in my opinion, be assisted, and warned, so to encourage them to follow a path similar to that of Taiwan, or South Korea, or several Hispanophone countries of the Americas, which improved politically in the late nineteen-eighties and early nineties.
If I read you right there could be three reasons for keeping Turkey out:
1) Economy, which you say would be stupid since the structure of the Turkish economy is better than of those countries we accept. I agree and Despite I´m not a fan of EU (I see it as a bad Implementation of the otherwise great idea of european unification) I´m glad that the econimical factor is not the reason.
If the economic, political, and human right criteria, for admittance are set to the lowest so to accept a Slovakia or a Croatia, then there's no reasonable cause to keep Turkey out.
I believe Turkey's current levels of either human-rights, political, or economic development are below that of a First-World democracy, and so not quite ready but then so are most of the new Eastern members.
But then it seems the EU, rather than wanting to be a strictly First-World democracies' joint, had decided to be a Common Indo-European Christian Club instead, so screw them.
2) The Turk/Greek problem. I think the attitude in most european countries are like "GET OVER IT ALREADY!" So even if its a huge problem for Greece and a smaller one in Brussel it would never be a reason for the general public to hold Turkey out. And a vast majority doesn´t want to accept it.
The EU's dishonest attitude is een in its treatment of the Cypriot question.
The small Middle-Eastern
island has been told it'd be admitted in the Union, supposedly on the condition it puts an end to its ethnic conflict and initiates re-unification. However, should the two halves reach an agreement, only the Greek side will is admitted anyway!
Greece, whose treatment of its Turkish minority in Thrace, and of its Slavic minorities in Macedonia, is far below the standards of all other current EU members including the Mediterranean ones, has no other motivation in opposing Turkey's admittance, other than because it's made of Turks.
3) that leaves one reason. The human rights question. The European human right declaration has to be fulfilled to be accepted in EU and that includes things like leaving death penalty as a way of punishment (just to take one example) and Turkey hasn´t taken the nessesary steps.
Well, to my knowledge there's a Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and then there's a European Convention on Human Rights, which are not quite the same thing.
Should the level of economic development suitable for a First-World country be reached by Turkey, a sufficient compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights is still indispensable for admittance (but perhaps Greece should be ousted for failure to comply, but they have the Parthenon and the Attalos Portico and other bibelots, and so are treated with way too much indulgence).
4) Some in turkey claim that its the christian europe that won´t accept a muslim country.
Former French President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing admitted as much.
But even for me as a atheist its importent that those minimum conditions are met. Religion can not make respect for human life relative. Especially not in a union that is going to be more tight in the next few years.
Formally, Turkey is more secular than most countries already in the EU. Islam still has a doctrine problem with the notions of religously-neutral state and religously-neutral civil society, which are precisely what make religion tame.
That maisntream moderate Islam is less accomodating of a secualr state than the most fundamnetalist of fundamnetalist Christians, and that Islam's influence on a sizable part of Turkey's population, still very traditional, would be the only worrisome ground here. However, the actual problem they have with Turkey here, is that it's full of Muslims.
If its for a fifth reason we want to keep out Turkey please state it.
I believe as much as stated above, that Turkey is simply considered not-really European given that it is seen as fully and forever lost to Christendom since Constatinople fell in the hands of Mehmet II in 1453.
You have rejected the economical reason as well as the human rights one (which I claim is the right one) and I have rejected the others. If you have another please say so
I suppose I explained why I think Turkey was rejected and some less or just as worthy candidates admitted, and what in my opinion should have been the proper route taken.
If necessary, I could clarify further.
In Goldsteins post he is trying to say no harm was done anywhere and that simply isn´t true.
I say many things, some of them untrue, but where fo i say no harm was done anywhere?
The presens of troops in Pakistan and the preversion of the current "government" is not good for the citizents of pakistan.
The presence of U.S. troops in Paksitan is insignificant, precisley for not to hinder the stability of Pakistan;s current government, which is the U.S.' biggest asset in that counbtry. that is also the reason why it keeps shower favours on Pakistan while democratic Inmdia begs to become the U.S.' premier partner in the Subcontinent
Would the american troops allow an uprising to tumble Mussharraf if the social pressure became strong enough? No because it needs stability. The same goes for Turkmenistan. And for Tajikistan even if its considerable more mudded.
The American troops would not in a position to allow or disallow an uprising, and the presence of any substantial number of such troops in the country would put Paiksitan;s stability at risk. Besides, Musharraf seems to be doing fine in that department, to the satisfaction of all concerned.
As for the Central European Stans, the more significant presence of U.S. troops there, for the time being, could be likened to that in some less than palatable countries during the second half of the twentieth century (think Francoist Spain), which didn't turn all that bad after all.