Melita,

I have a hard time seeing Turkey as part of Europe. Anatolia is part of Asia and there is this little tiny strip of Europe that the Ottomans seized in 1913 when the Bulgarians were gang-banged by their neighbors that year.

You are right to assert that Kemalism is Europhile and faces west. But a major inheritance of Kemalism has been a corrupt political system that needs purging by the military (the other inheritance of Kemalism) every now and again.

Then there is another point. If Europe does indeed go the Eurabian route, as seems more and more likely by the month, that will spell the end of a secular Islamic state in Turkey. Looking at it all from my lenses, Europe is a rich overripe tomato that is rotten to the core, about to fall to the Islamic fox waiting for it with juicy jaws. If I were a Turk, I'd look to central Asia, to the ancestral lands of Turkey, the Turkic lands in from which the modern Turks came, for an expansive and bright future. Their experience under Russian/Soviet rule has erased the total dominance of the Shariat and given a strong element of secular rule the norm. But the languages are still Turkic, and the traditions are something that can resonate in the mind of the modern Turk in Anatolia. A Turkey which is more modern than its ancestral lands in Central Asia but somehow linked to them would give it an identity and an existence separate from that of Europe, which seems to me to be more and more tied to that of the Arab countries...

Ruvy, I feel that a stronger and more representative EU could replace the function of the Turkish military in terms of keeping things cleanish in terms of Turkish politics. I think I alluded to that in this article, and I'll explore it far more in the next. The thing is, Kemalism can lead to a corrupt government system because of an over-reliance on the military to step in and fix things. But it doesn't HAVE to.

I wonder if the soft outlook of the EU on Palestine is affecting your judgement about Europe-as-Eurabia and the relative charms of tight Turkish collaboration with Central Asia. I mean, when you write that the experience of eastern Turkic lands under Russian/Soviet rule has made secular government the norm, you leave alot out. Alot. Turkmenistan, frankly, is even less pretty then sharia, and I know how much that's saying. Looking to formerly Soviet Turkic countries for a "bright and expansive future" - Ruvy, I can only ask what the hell you're thinking.

As for Europe-turning-into-Eurabia . . . no. What you see as the rotten tomato of Europe about to get swallowed by a hungry fox of Islam is in fact the actions of governments struggling to deal with the consequences of the colonialism that helped make them prosperous in the face of a majority population who is extremely hostile to the Arabic populations initially imported for cheap labour, a vocal and active part of these Arabic populations that's hostile enough to further polarize majority opinion against their population through wholesale murder, and a continent-wide brainfart when it comes to the idea of integration.

If those are the sorts of conditions that are going to tie Europe more and more to Arab countries, I'd hate to see real opposition. You'd know, if you thought about it impersonally for five minutes, that European efforts to aid Arab neighbours financially and politically aren't about keeping the Arabic populations in Europe quiet - they're about not swelling those populations with any more economic or political immigrants.

That's seperate from the idea of Turkish inclusion - or at least it should be.

Europe's problems with its Moslem population come from the lack of non-Moslem babies there - something which creates a labor shortage. It may result in European regimes swallowing the trash fed them by Arab countries regarding Israel, but as you point out, that is a separate issue altogether - in spite of the fact that the good "Christians" on the European continent do not seem to feel too bad about Arab Jew-hatred when it is violently expressed in Europe...

I'm sorry if I do not appear to feel much sympathy for the Europeans - the fact that Europe is a Jewish graveyard with a centuries long history of vicious persecution of my people influences my views far more than the craven appeasement of Arab terrorists practiced by its present regimes. The Europeans made a deal with the devil when they decided to invite in cheap Moslem labor instead of having babies themselves - and now the devil is sticking them in the butt with the pitchfork of Consequence. It couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch of people...

What I mean by a "bright" future alludes to the fact that Turkey is more economically advanced than these Turkic countries in cental Asia - so it can be the leader, instead of the follower begging for recognition of the "democracies" in Europe. Why not be a head instead of a tail? Consider the Italian for curse words - "bad Turkish words." For over two centuries, Europeans have been heaping contempt upon the Turks in one way or another. They need more now?

Ruvy, for the past couple thousand years, the Europeans have been heaping contempt on each other, and that includes the Turks. Luckily, continental politics are usually based on more than street-level ethnic insults.

If Turkey decides on a future as the nationalistic leader of the Turkic peoples throughout the former Soviet empire, it gets to deal with even more Russian hostility than it's faced down as part of its dynamic within the European system for hundreds of years. It also gets to deal with the prospect of "leading" millions of people out of indigence and enforced political illiteracy when it hasn't yet got a handle on poverty in its own territories. Outside of board games, there's no way that's more appealing than EU membership or even a more watered down association. None. Zero. The idea is laughable.

Not to mention, membership in or a closer association with the EU isn't going to exclude the possibility of Turkish economic leadership in the region. It'll just give them the trans-national support Turkey has always needed from the West in terms conflicts with Russian interests in the region.

Finally, I understand why you don't have a sympathetic view of Europeans. I might not understand why you feel letting in Muslims for cheap labour was in and of itself a "deal with the devil." But I don't think either of these opinions is pertinent in terms of Turkish accession to the EU.

For the most part, I'm content to await the second installment of your series, though I disagree with you.

Just three points.

1. Read this article by Mark Steyn, The Future Belongs to Islam, to see where I get my perspective on the "devil's deal" the Europeans have made with Moslems.

2. If Steyn is right, then Europe is a failing enterprise that Turkey would do well to avoid.

3. Many of the Moslems living in Europe come from Turkey - particularly in Germany.

Populations of Turkish descent in the Schengen area aren't rife with militant Islamism, Ruvy; that's why people like like Steyn are juuuuust literate enough to make up an idea like "Eurabia" instead of "Euramism." Turkey, you see, has far more experience of secular government than most Schengen area countries.

And please. I'm interested in your perspectuve and happy to listen to it but spare me Mark Steyn. I have to read his bloody articles every week at work. He's a man who makes his living by espousing certain ideas for a certain demographic, come hell or high water, and damn consistency or his own knowledge of the subject.
I couldn't take him seriously if you offered me money to; certainly not about Europe.

I have to smile a bit, Melita.

I realize full well that the Turks who have settled in Germany are not at all rife with militance. But many Europeans who are annoyed at the presence of Moslems may not see them that way. It strikes me that if Turkey wants in to the EU club, then the Turks have to meet the Europeans' standards, not vice versa. So it is their view of Turks that counts, rather than the facts. And it is their perceptions, be they true or false, of Turks already in Europe - as resident "guest workers" or as citizens, what have you - that will most influence them.

I do not know enough of these perceptions to speak intelligently, but Mark Steyn's nightmare of Europe for you would likely be a nightmnare for European Turks as well...

You're surely right that Europe's difficult relationship with its Turkish citizens is more about perception than reality, Ruvy, and that's surely a problem, but not an insurmountable one. And certainly, it's not the dominant perception in terms of the worst part of the relationship between Christian Europe and the Muslim world, which has much more to do with the post-colonial Muslim world than it does with Turkey.

And while Turkey may have lots to prove to the EU, there're lots of things the EU needs to demonstrate as well if accession is going to be as successful as it should be.

Stay tuned, I guess.

Melita,

I was going to keep quiet and await the next installment of your series, but something in your comments just didn't sound right and I just had to open my big trap about it.

I had the opportunity to study Turkish history. They did rule this country once for a few hundred years before the Brits drove them out. It's a strange sight to go to the AACI (Americans And Canadians in Israel) office in Tel Aviv and realize they are right near the Turkish embassy there. You look up at the flag and realize that once that was the national flag of the country. It's a strange feeling if, like me, you like to study history and have a feel for time moving around you inexorably.

My point is this. The EU can never replace the Turkish military for any reason. Before the present Turkish republic came into being, the Turkish army was fighting Greeks and Frenchmen to secure the country's independence from foreigners. Cemal Attatürk was the commander of that army and he was one of the very few generals to survive from the Ottoman era. Cemal Pasha had been part of the triumvirate ruling Turkey before the empire fell, and had commanded the forces at Gelibölu, what you know at Gallipoli. As I'm sure you know, Gallipoli was a disaster for the BEF and associated Imperial forces there during the Great War.

It was Cemal Pasha, under the nom de guerre Attatürk, who rallied the soldiers of the defeated empire to drive out the French from the south and the Greeks from Ionia. It was the Turkish army that was and remains the guarantor of Turkish independence and sovereignty and no EU claptrap can get around that for a Turk. This is also the main reason why Turks trust their military more than they trust the politicians, which is why the Turkish military comes in from time to time to clean up the mess, and let the politicians know that if they are not careful, their relatives will be eating Halvá. I'll let you look up why this is so, if you do not know.

Thus, "a stronger and more representative EU could replace the function of the Turkish military in terms of keeping things cleanish in terms of Turkish politics" is just not a realistic formulation of policy. The republic rests upon the military as its basis. The military is the ghost of Cemal Attatürk, the leader who is no longer there to guide the nation.

Something for you to think about, Mistress la Spliffe.

I appreciate the importance of the Turkish military in the history of the country and in the history of Kemalism. I also appreciate the geopolitical reasons why Turkey needs a strong military - stronger, perhaps, than many other countries with an extremely martial history who have downgraded their military spending. It's something I have thought about, Ruvy. I wouldn't have written an article like this if I hadn't.

But I also appreciate that other countries have learnt to keep their governments clean through more accountable democracy instead of hoping to God they can go on trusting the political good sense of the military to keep everyone honest.

Military governance is not ideal. At its best, it's a stopgap measure. With Ataturk's fondness for democracy and Western Institutions, do you think it's what he wanted for his country, or what the country wants for itself, or even what the true-blue Kemalists in the Turkish military want?

I believe Turkey deserves an accountable democracy, I believe that its citizens can make it thrive, and I believe that membership in an EU with more representative and accountable institutions than it currently has is a way to get it.

And if this goes on, I believe most of my next article will be contained in a string of comments I think only you and I are reading as Americans go on arguing how much of a pinko Nancy Pelosi is or isn't.

(t)Urkey (pronounced Urk-e-ii) never had anything to do with Europe. It is a third world country that resembles more to an African banana republic than any Middle Eastern dictatorship. It never had democracy – it never wanted democracy (like the talibans). The reason why US loves them is simply that it is the easiest way to destroy EU. If they love it that much why don’t they take it as a new US state?

Gazon, you're wrong. And where you're not wrong, you should ask yourself why people like you always assume that what the United States wants is bad for everyone else. The United States wanted the European Union, and now it feels threatened by its success. The United States wants Turkish accession, but if Turkish accession works then the United States will be even more threatened.