NATO, Greece and Turkey (NOT another Greco-Turkish Thread)

[Big K]

theres a thing you might consider.

it was US and its President Mr. Bush who supported Mr. Erdogan who was a well known Islamic radical&fundamentalist.

considering US's goals did not change in time, can anyone explain it?...

it is the West who supported a radical&fundamentalist to gain the power in here.

and personally i'll never forget and make forget that.

[Smoking Mirror]

Big K, I notice that several writers comment on Turkey's decision to strengthen its ties with the Islamic community, for example see: Is Turkey Leaving the West? | Foreign Affairs

I have no clear explanation as to why conservative West politicians supported ERdogan in the first place. Perhaps, they imagined that an Islamic head of the Turkish Republic would push Iran and other Muslim countries towards secularism and not the other way around!

Perhaps, the question should be whether a future Turkish secession from NATO is possible even without a war between our countries!

[Rastagir]

I still don't see Erdogan as an "Islamic radical & fundamentalist", at least not from where I am sitting, and not considering his external policy. I do not (and will not) claim that I know better than the turkish members here, I do not know first hand what happens inside Turkey. Big K knows my views and I don't think I have to repeat them here.

In answer to Smoking Mirror's question I will say this: Perhaps the West knew Erdogan's sympathy towards Islam. Perhaps the West wanted to see a change in Turkey's external policy (which, as far as I remember, was quite stagnant). Perhaps they wanted to have among NATO's midst a country whose elected president is known for his sympathies and and option (b) besides "let's hit Islamists with force". Perhaps they cultivated a country's leadership to be western-oriented but sympathetic to arab countries in order to use this country as a "bridge". We all know that brute force hasn't brought the desired results and NATO is already full of milirary "yes-men", it needs mediators and Turkey might be the only one to fulfill that role. And if this mediator fails, well, the Turkish army already doesn't view the government in a positive light. Things can get back to normal in no time.

Turkey is an asset to NATO not only because it is strong in terms of military, but also the only muslim country (ok, NOT muslim, but a country with a predominant muslim population) and we can all say "Hey, NATO isn't a new Crusade, look, we have Turkey with us!"

Turkey WON'T leave NATO. Turkey won't forfeit the No2 position it has in it, won't sever it's ties with the West, it will only try to use this position to built ties with the East. The US, on the other hand, won't let Turkey go. It's simple as that. The US might not have the power it had 10 years ago but still is the most powerful player around (both in economic and political terms), won't stand being humiliated (by having one powerful member escape it's sphere of influence) and can and will find 1000 ways to make Turkey's life a misery (for example supporting Greek, Cyprus or Armenian interests). The Turkish army definitely won't let that happen.

[Imho]

Turkey WON'T leave NATO. Turkey won't forfeit the No2 position it has in it, won't sever it's ties with the West, it will only try to use this position to built ties with the East. The "US, on the other hand, won't let Turkey go. It's simple as that. The US might not have the power it had 10 years ago but still is the most powerful player around (both in economic and political terms), won't stand being humiliated (by having one powerful member escape it's sphere of influence) and can and will find 1000 ways to make Turkey's life a misery (for example supporting Greek, Cyprus or Armenian interests). The Turkish army definitely won't let that happen."

With your last paragraph Rastagir you answered the question with which you started this thread!Cheers.......

[Rastagir]

I dont think so Imho

In that paragraph, I merely state that the US won't let Turkey leave NATO, or if it did, Turkey would do that not because of a conflict with Greece but for other reasons entirely. That doesn't mean that all problems for the hypothesis I have stated have been solved. In this last page we discuss now the possibility of Turkey leaving or be expelled from NATO (in my opinion, less than zero) because "it's turning East" as so many people state (also wrong, in my opinion). This is one thing, consequences from two NATO members actually clashing (the question in this thread) is another.

However, I wouldn't mind discussing both scenarios. When we started this thread, there wasn't all that hype about Turkey's "eastward turn". Will Greece play that card? Would it have a positive response with other members or an entirely negative one? Furthermore, I guess it is worth discussing how the other NATO members would react. The US might have the most "powerful vote", but doesn't have the only vote. Is Turkey's "turn to the east" seen as a good move or a bad one from the European allies? (don't forget that one of the positives in Turkey's EU membership is the influence EU might aquire in the ME. Some, however, say that this is a negative)

I guess that this "turn to the east" hype (which, I say again, I find extremely exaggerated, but others don't seem to think so) is worth discussing, in how it would change the impact on NATO.

Once again. I would really hate to turn this thread on "Turkey this and Greece that". The main debate is on NATO's responce as a whole. Involve both countries if you must, but let us not stay on this alone.

[Big K]

Rasta,

mate you dont see him as a fundamentalist because obviously you dont know his & fellows (like Mr. Gul) past sayings & actings.

look for his ties with hikmetyar of taliban on the net.

or look for their saying about secularism.

i do not support CHP nor MHP nor anyother political parties in here, i have no reason to be their enemy except what they have done to our country.

and mate with all my heart i can say that they are ruining the country and its future.

they are building a dictatorship, mark my words.

heres the truth.

these fundamentalists have issues with Ataturk and his reformings, (which are saying an economically&politically non-dependent Turkey)

some Western countries have issues or interests with Ataturk & Modern Turkey,

their goals were the same and they cooperated.

as always the West did not see the results of his early actions(just like obl and taliban issue)

thats all.

[Smoking Mirror]

Rastagir, I think that we quite agree on the reasons for the support of Erdogan by the Western governments. We should definitely bear in mind however that Turkey didn't join NATO in the first place in order to be the muslim scapegoat in an all-christian club. There were other reasons, necessitating Turkey's participation, e.g. the "red danger".

Regarding this, I have a question regarding something Big K has mention. It's mostly historical and doesn't have to do much with this thread, but here it is anyway: you say that an independent Turkey is one of the foundations of Kemalism. What are then Turkey's reasons for joining the NATO camp during the cold war period, instead of going with the unaligned movement? Was it because the Turkish army believed that the traditional geopolitic goal of Russia, e.g. Mediterranean access, did not greatly change under the Soviet Regime?

As for Turkey's "Eastern Turn" and a possible future conflict with NATO: I mention this as a possibility for the future, although I don't believe that the current global climate is in favor such an action. Although I do see that Turkey is renewing its ties with the Muslim world, the Turkish foreign policy has some long-term goals that are not easily abandoned. Rastagir knows well that relationships with Greece haven't changed that much, despite the swift in power from the army to Mr. Erdogan and his supporters.

However, one can imagine several scenarios that would break the ties of Turkey with the West, without a betrayal of the country's interests. Those would require significant changes in global geopolitics, such as the rise of a strong (perhaps nuclear armed) Iran, a Turkish-Russian approach, etc. All these factors would outweigh the support of a dissatisfied America towards Turkey's traditional "enemies".

As for Greece playing the "Turkish gone rogue" card? So far, I don't see it happening and it probably won't happen unless there's the aforementioned change in the global agenda. However, since such a change would bring Greece right in the middle (geographically speaking) of a West-East conflict, I think that would be the least of our problems.

[Big K]

Rastagir, I think that we quite agree on the reasons for the support of Erdogan by the Western governments. We should definitely bear in mind however that Turkey didn't join NATO in the first place in order to be the muslim scapegoat in an all-christian club. There were other reasons, necessitating Turkey's participation, e.g. the "red danger".

Regarding this, I have a question regarding something Big K has mention. It's mostly historical and doesn't have to do much with this thread, but here it is anyway: you say that an independent Turkey is one of the foundations of Kemalism. What are then Turkey's reasons for joining the NATO camp during the cold war period, instead of going with the unaligned movement? Was it because the Turkish army believed that the traditional geopolitic goal of Russia, e.g. Mediterranean access, did not greatly change under the Soviet Regime?

obviously you dont know what USSR asked from Turkey just after WW2...

they declared that they will not renew the non agression pact of 1925 between Turkey & USSR

they asked us to give them military bases at Bosphorus

they asked us to give them Kars and some other Turkish northeastern cities.

that was what Stalin asked thru his minister Molotov from Turkey.

however the thread here is not about a NATO-Turkish clash but what would happen if two NATO members attacks eachother.

despite Erdogan's fundamentalist moves i dont believe that he can afford a conflict with NATO nor US.

he will try to camouflage his goals into a "democractic" trojan horse and will try to eliminate inner opposition while he will raise his votes by so-called opposition to the West.

he supports Kurdish facists(yes they are facists) in the name of democracy and uses religion (as all rulers did in that area except Modern Turkey, and thats the main problem there)

before this so called rising of Turkey one must ask himself some questions:

how Turkey feels safe to turn its back toIsrael which is one big supporter of Turkey in US in the Armenian issue?

how suddenly Armenian Turkish relations became warmer despite the opposition of Armenian Diaspora

how suddenly PKK commence to try to legalise it self.

how Turkey which is immensly dependent on Western hot money to endure on going economial crisis turned its back (seemingly) to the West...

it is nothing to do with religion nor dempcracy.

theres an ongoing campaign of "de-sovietisation of Armenia" for an alternative energy corridor & brake the Russian monopoly

in order to do that

1-Armenia must feel safe
2-Armenia must be richer
3-the region must be stabilised.

so for the rest use your imagination...

my friends a country who have that much loan to payback & economcally that fragile can not be "free"

end of discussion...

[TTL]

he will try to camouflage his goals into a "democractic" trojan horse and will try to eliminate inner opposition while he will raise his votes by so-called opposition to the West.

he supports Kurdish facists(yes they are facists) in the name of democracy and uses religion (as all rulers did in that area except Modern Turkey, and thats the main problem there)

His government also sponsors the Ergenekon trials, which are claimed to be politically motivated show trials by opposition parties and writers.

Turkey WON'T leave NATO. Turkey won't forfeit the No2 position it has in it, won't sever it's ties with the West, it will only try to use this position to built ties with the East. The US, on the other hand, won't let Turkey go...

Nato might not have the primary importance it held during the cold war anymore. With the common enemy gone deep fractures are showing themselves among the members. The recent and planned expansions is only worsening the problem I think.

[Imho]

Russia and Turkey become bigger economic allies,which is good for Balkan stability .Little older article,but informative.
Asia Times Online :: Middle East News, Iraq, Iran current affairs

[Rastagir]

my friends a country who have that much loan to payback & economcally that fragile can not be "free"

My dear friend, we must face the fact that we are not strong and independant nations, not to the point at least that we can do whatever we like, or have a complete freedom of movement. This is a sad truth. We must use diplomacy because, like it or not, we have huge loans and other nations breathing down our necks. We can not dream of being strong to the point of doing what is good only for us. Only thing we can do is better our position, but we won't escape "spheres of infuence" any time soon. We must play the game the best way we can and hope for the best.

In answer to your questions now:

1) how Turkey feels safe to turn its back to Israel which is one big supporter of Turkey in US in the Armenian issue?

I don't think that Turkish-Israeli relationships are going down the drain. I honestly believe that Turkey is just showing Israel (and to the world) that it's support is not unconditional. Furthermore, Israel needs Turkey much more than the other way around. And I also believe that this "Turkey-Iraeli rift" is mostly for show, under the table, bussiness is as usual.

2)how suddenly Armenian Turkish relations became warmer despite the opposition of Armenian Diaspora

You know and I know that this Agreement is null and void unless it passes from both parliaments. Again, I think that it is mostly for show. Neither Turkey, nor Armenia have any real intention of mending their differences (each for it's own reasons). For Turkey especially is a good move: Showing to the world that is willing to discuss differences. But, practically, has this agreement achieved anything concrete? Not yet, and I think that it will be a long time until something like this happens. Again, I am all for people reconsiliating but for good reasons, and what happens now, the reasons behind this Agreement are NOT good reasons.

3)how suddenly PKK commence to try to legalise it self.

Again, a move for show (mostly). Or, someone could claim that since the more forceful and military solution hasn't bore fruits, a more diplomatic path might. I am not the judge of that and I can't decide if, in the end, this is a good move or a bad one.

4) Armenia

I stand on my previous statement: I am all for resolving differences, but for the right reasons. I don't think that what happens now ARE for the right reasons. It's just a "quick" solution that, even if it is actually implemented, will crumble, bringing more chaos.

Nato might not have the primary importance it held during the cold war anymore. With the common enemy gone deep fractures are showing themselves among the members. The recent and planned expansions is only worsening the problem I think.

We agree. It is funny, in a twisted kind of way, to see NATO, which was developed to safeguard Europe from the Russian threat to end up safeguarding (primarily) America's interests in the Middle East. 10 years ago, no one would believe for a moment that it would be the US who would invoke Article 5. During the Cold War, every member of NATO feared the Russians and perceived the threat in the same way, now the US are hell bent on Terrorism while most Europeans see this as "not their affair and certainly not their war". It is amazing to see the unforeseen consequences of actions past. And, instead of learning from them, we do the same mistakes, over and over again.

Granting Ukraine entry to NATO must be one of the most stupid moves in recent times. There is absolutely no good reason for that. There are rifts in NATO as it is, we only bring more problems in the fold.