This blog is the official class blog of Escenarios Regionales del Mundo Contemporaneo 2009. (Blog 2)
Students, you will use this blog to post anything interesting that you find, comment on each other's findings, and generally write reflections of classes so that everyone is learning together and contributing to making this blog a real online space in which we can discuss important world issues. This is in addition to other online spaces on YouTube, and the class wiki.
This is not meant for you to take sides, for it is peace, not Israel nor Palestine who needs your support.
Alarming problems are growing near Jerusalem's holy compund. We've seen in class the importance of Temple Mount, a site that is both important for Judaism and Islam. Being this a disputed land, precious for these two religions, I believe it is comprehensible the impact that any riot ocurring in this place will have in both Jewish and Palestinians. Last week, 12 people were arrested in the Temple Mount by the Israeli police, which claims the arrested were youngester who were throwing rocks and petroleum bombs. Confusion and mixed opinions are all over, for the Israeli police denied they made any entrance to the al-Aqse mosque, while there on the other hand, there are Palestinians saying the Israeli police even sealed the compund, leaving around 100 worshipers inside. Last september, Palestinian protesters presumably attacked non-Muslims with stones. The police from Israel counterattacked them using tear gas. In this story, there are also two variants: Palestinians who say those "non-Muslims" were actually Jewish extremist with intentions of damaging Jerusalem's holy site; and Israeli police saying those "non-Muslims" were tourists who were just visiting the place. Today, an extremist Israeli tried to attack al-Aqsa and its worshipers. The Islamic Endowments Department arrested the man and handed him to Israeli authorities, saying they figured out he might have wanted to open fire inside the mosque in a radical, massacre attempt. We know that in this world, every cause has an effect; each clash between Israeli sand Palestinians will continue to have enormous consequences in political decisions and people's minds. In Jordan, various movements in protest have been happening. There was a Jordanian march last October that asked the Israeli ambassador to leave Amman and that criticized Arab governments for their "calm" while people was facing this kind of problems. A group of Jordanian's also burned an Israeli flag at the time they urged Jordan's governement to abolish the peace treaty made with Israel in 1994. Pro-Islamic people in Turkey have also joined protests against Israel.
More information: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8324539.stm http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6891249.ece http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-10/09/content_12202767.htm http://www.unnindia.com/english/story.php?Id=5527
Just a small part of the territory of Turkey is placed in Europe, and this leads to the big political issue: should Turkey be considered a European country so it can become a member of the EU? This question has been debated a lot, particulaly in Europe where many countries are against the Turkish membership of the EU meanwhile other countries emphasize that the possibility for Turkish membership can be a goal in order to advance and stabilize democracy in Turkey. The possibility of a future membership was recognized when Turkey and the European Economic Community first entered an association agreement in 1963, but since 1999, Turkey had been as a country negotiating for a membership.
Besides they don’t know if Turkey is from Europe or from Middle East, many think that the EU doesn’t want Turkey to enter because they are not Christian.
"Turkey is not a Germany, or a France, and it will never be like these countries. Turkey is different. If the current members want to establish Europe on the base of Christian values, Turkey can never be a European. If Europe means Christian discrimination, it means that the EU has to live with more than 100 million non Europeans (Muslims) inside"German politician Stoiber argued that Turkey has different cultural and spiritual background and these differences make it non-European: "Turkey is not Europe nor does it belong to the continent, because the country has such great cultural and spiritual differences with western values.”
Nowadays, Turkey’s position between Europe and the Middle East is more in a state of instability that it has been for many years.
As we all know from the classes, and some comments on the blog, Turkey has wanted to accede the European Union since 1987, when it made its application. Even though Turkey has been an associate member of the European Union since 1963, it was one of the first members of the Council of Europe in 1949, was a founding member of the OECD, and is also an associate member of the Eastern European Union, its EU membership has been pending since 1999. To access the EU,Turkey must first successfully complete negotiations with the European Commission on each of the 35 chapters of the Acquis Communautaire (the total body of EU laws accumulated so far)., most of which are currently close to completion, while others need considerable efforts (to see the full chart go this article on Wikipedia).
There are different points of view from the different leaders of the world on wether Turkey should or not join the European Union. Former french president Jacques Chirac supporeted Turkey's entrance, but he said that the country needed to undergo a "major cultural revolution" (read: religion incompatibility) and that it would take them at least 10 years. Queen Elizabeth II also supports Turkey's bid,"Turkey, with its strategic location straddling Europe and Asia, would be an asset for the European Union." she stated. In contrast, the current French president Nicholas Sarkozy opposes its entrance, his major reason being that Turkey is not in Europe, but in Asia Minor, instead what he wishes "to offer Turkey is a true partnership with Europe, but not integration into Europe". Angela Merkel, the German chancellor also opposes Turkey's full entrance to the EU. Other leaders that support Turkey are Spain's Prime Minister Zapatero, Italian Prime and Foreign Ministers Silvio Berlusconi and Franco Frattini (respectively), and Portuguese State Secretary for European Affairs Manuel Lobo Antunes.
Constituted in the beginning by only 6 members, the European Unions has not ceased expanding across the territory surrounding the countries that initially founded it, accomplishing the unification of a continent that for a while was separated as a result of political and military actions. Nonetheless, we cannot say yet that every and each one of the countries of the European continent are together thanks to a vote of union, nor we can say that they are all represented by the image of this organism that is the European Union. Despite the fact that some countries have been left out from the community, either because of their own will or because they have not received the permission to enter, the European Union maintains an enlargement policy that hopes that, as years go by, more countries are added to enrich this intended integration.
Event though, it is clear that as more members join, more challenges and difficulties will make their appearance, and they will complicate the decisions and frustrate the objectives of the European Union. Taking these risks into consideration, the European Union has implemented a series of requirements that have to be met by the candidates before they proceed into the Union. Some of the criteria expect that the candidate:
-Is a democracy
-Respects humans rights
-Protects and respects minorities
-Has a functioning market economy and that the country is able to overcome any kind of difficulties that may emerge in the economic area.
-Assumes responsibility and fulfils its obligations as a member once he is accepted.
-Is, needless to say, willing to continue and cooperates for the well-being and development of the European Union.
Currently, there are three countries that are considered as candidates: Croatia, Turkey, and the Former Yugoslav State of Macedonia. Turkey is, perhaps, the country who has caused more controversy after its request to become part of the European Union, and after its acceptance as a candidate in 1999. It is easy to build up debates concerning the acceptance or the rejection of Turkey. Just go into Youtube, search for a video related to Turkey, and you will see hundreds of comments that mention its accession. Opinions find their way through and even mini wars are started among people all around the world who differ and turn this theme upside down with the purpose of finding a conclusion. Outside the virtual world that serves as a mirror of a reality in which diplomats and citizens hesitate, a number of studies are being opened in order to evaluate Turkey’s petition, the consequences and its capability for integrating the European Union.
I believe that this indecision and these doubts are not just an exaggeration. They all come out because there are many aspects that have to be considered before determining the Turkey-EU situation, which could end benefiting the European Union or damaging it, in some sense.
As I read some web pages, I found out some of the most noticeable aspects that people tend to argue about, concerning the access of Turkey into the EU:
1. Geography
This is one of the most used arguments, especially by those who want to immediately silence every person in favour of Turkey’s acceptance into the EU. For us, it is easy to know which countries belong to the American continent, because there are oceans all around, separating us from the world. But to whom does Turkey belong: Europe or Asia? There are people who say it belongs entirely to Asia. Others claim that a part is in the European Continent and the rest is located in Asia. If Turkey were Asian, it would be “easy” to end this debate (“if it is not European, why should it be included within the EUROPEANUnion?”). But when people say that Turkey is divided between two continents, what do we do then? It would be ridiculous to accept only one small piece of the country (if we were still using the same argument of acceptance if Turkey = European).
At the same time, there is another notorious point: its proximity to the Middle East. Some people think this would be a threat to the EU’s security and stability, as for them Turkey will serve as an entrance for the “problematic nations”, like Iran and Iraq. On the other side, there are people who think Turkey would carry out an important and useful role regarding the European-Asian relations, working as an intermediary to “soften” and making negotiations smoother with the Middle East.
2. Population
Turkey has an estimated population of 76 000 000 people (according to CIA’s World Factbook). If Turkey entered the European Union, it would easily become on of the most populated countries, behind Germany. To this we can add the fact that Turkey has a high quantity of young people that would serve a working force, which will at once help “resolve” the problem of the aging population in Europe. Also Turkey has a higher birth rate in comparison: 18.66 births/1,000 population against 9.9 births/1,000 population from the EU. Turkey could then bring workers that would generate money to pay for the pensions, but it would as well bring more responsibilities towards a bigger population.
3. Religion
(Mainly) Islam vs. Christians
I think I have nothing further to say in this point but that. Oh, no, wait. I believe this should not be a problem at all, considering the EU is based in respect and freedom (which includes freedom to choose your religion), and that all of its members should agree with these values, am I not right?
4. Human Rights
The EU thinks Turkey needs to improve in this area and guarantee the authentic respect of human rights inside the country, by changing, for example, the violence against women. There is also some old history involved, since in the 1900’s there was a campaign (taken as “genocide”) to eliminate the Armenian population in Turkey… or the Ottoman Empire, as it was known then. However, Turkey has not accepted is responsibility, which is, in a certain way, a refusal to accept its not-so-straight position on the subject of human rights.
5. Energy
Pipelines across Turkey supply Europe with oil and gas.
6. Economy
Even though Turkey has experienced an economic growth, it is still too “poor” for joining the European Union. Some argue that is adherence would dry out the EU’s resources and that Turkey would need some help for improving its economy, which would leave the poorest countries that are already members of the EU without the necessary attention and support.
Turkey is already a trade partner for the European Union. They even share a customs union since 1995. As far as it goes, Turkey has done various reforms to “please” the EU’s wishes and obviously for Turkey’s own sake and prosperity (a new penal code, prohibition of death penalty and torture, and has given rights to minorities), in order to be honestly considered as a candidate. On of the web pages I read, the author closed its article with a quote I would also like to use to end this post: "We are talking a lot about Turkey's readiness, but really it's the readiness of the EU that we need to be talking about, the readiness of Europe to embrace Turkey in the way they expect to be embraced." (Karl Theodor zu Guttenberg, German politician). It really leaves you thinking about who is the most unprepared: the EU or Turkey? Because Turkey can continue changing every law to make them match the European Union’s desires, but no one can really assure that they will be accepted in, at least on a near future.
The rise of the Soviet Union and the dominance that it acquired after the Second World War were reasons enough to create certain “paranoia” in the United States, a fear of communism spreading worldwide. Though we could also say it was not an unfounded alarm, but a reality likely to happen. To defend democracy from the threat awaken by growing communism, the United States adopted its famous policy of containment (as we saw in class). In 1947, president Truman said that it was the United States’ duty to help any country vulnerable to fall to communism. Out from this idea, the United States began to take various actions. One of them was the Truman Doctrine, the “beginning” of American war against communism. After World War II, the United Kingdom supplied some countries, such as Greece and Turkey, with financial aid. However, the UK reached a point where it was unable to carry on with the help, so they asked America for a plan B. The reason why it was important to continue contributing with these two countries was that Greece was going through a civil war and Turkey was still on a process of recovering and modernization, which made them susceptible to adopt communism one day or another. American support resulted in the defeat of the Greek Communist Party. But this was not the only consequence. The importance of Truman Doctrine and the policy of containment, established within American minds, led later to “bigger” things, such as the involvement of the United States in the Vietnam and Korean war.
Was it all worth it? Was it really America's responsibility to maintain communism aside? Was it the right way to stop communism?
For more information: http://www.conservapedia.com/Truman_Doctrine http://www.johndclare.net/cold_war8_TrumanDoctrine.htm http://books.google.com.mx/books?id=qXeRALIwozgC&pg=PA268&lpg=PA268&dq=greece+communism+us+truman+doctrine&source=bl&ots=hymjFEMYBa&sig=Suh2WYEmasrAIEJXGF12y2xdsqU&hl=es&ei=oHqbSoeMEY_-tQOsm_iUDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6#v=onepage&q=&f=false http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1780.html
