Hard-wired Obstinacy

 Editorial, 17 January 2016

There was a time not long ago–especially in fiction (think of Romeo in “Romeo and Juliet”)–when serenading below the balcony of the beloved, making oneself a nuisance idling near the house of the loved one, and writing unwanted love letters and bad poetry was considered romantic. Those days are gone. Such behaviour (nowadays telephone calls, texting, emails, etc.) is now considered stalking when the affection is not reciprocated. It’s a criminal offense. While men–yes, the offenders are mostly male–are finally learning that unwanted attention isn’t a coyly disguised “Yes”, there remains an obdurate an entity which refuses to understand that “No” means “No” and that it is not a disguised “naz” or “jilva”.

That obstinate entity is the Republic of Turkey. The government of that country must be the oldest stalker in the universe. Take Turkey’s courting of the European Union—please. Ankara has been trying, since 1959, to become a member of the European Union (EU), then called the European Economic Community. Despite countless rejections from the EU, the heads of European governments and European polls, Turkey keeps knocking on the doors of Berlin, Paris, Brussels, London… and offering ingratiating smiles like that of Istanbul’s Kapali Carsi’s haggling rug merchants. It also knocks on the doors of Vienna… but the Viennese haven’t forgotten the last two times (1529 and 1683) the Turks came knocking.

 Editorial, 17 January 2016

There was a time not long ago–especially in fiction (think of Romeo in “Romeo and Juliet”)–when serenading below the balcony of the beloved, making oneself a nuisance idling near the house of the loved one, and writing unwanted love letters and bad poetry was considered romantic. Those days are gone. Such behaviour (nowadays telephone calls, texting, emails, etc.) is now considered stalking when the affection is not reciprocated. It’s a criminal offense. While men–yes, the offenders are mostly male–are finally learning that unwanted attention isn’t a coyly disguised “Yes”, there remains an obdurate an entity which refuses to understand that “No” means “No” and that it is not a disguised “naz” or “jilva”.

That obstinate entity is the Republic of Turkey. The government of that country must be the oldest stalker in the universe. Take Turkey’s courting of the European Union—please. Ankara has been trying, since 1959, to become a member of the European Union (EU), then called the European Economic Community. Despite countless rejections from the EU, the heads of European governments and European polls, Turkey keeps knocking on the doors of Berlin, Paris, Brussels, London… and offering ingratiating smiles like that of Istanbul’s Kapali Carsi’s haggling rug merchants. It also knocks on the doors of Vienna… but the Viennese haven’t forgotten the last two times (1529 and 1683) the Turks came knocking.

Due to pressure by the United States—which likes to have a second fifth column (after the UK) in the EU—the Europeans have allowed alien Turkey membership in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, the Organization for Security & Co-operation in Europe, associate membership in the Western European Union part of the Western Group, and other sweeteners to satisfy Uncle Sam. But no matter how much pressure Washington brings to bear, the Europeans refuse to grant Turkey accession to the EU.

Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany has made it clear Germany—which already has 3 million Turks—will not approve Turkey’s membership in the EU. Former French President Nicola Sarkozy (Jan. 2007) said: “…enlarging Europe with no limits will destroy the European political union, and that I do not accept…I want to say that Europe must give itself borders, that not all countries have a vocation to become members of Europe, beginning with Turkey which has no place inside the European Union.” EU President Jean-Claude Juncker of Germany has also spoken against the admission of Turkey.

Poll after poll has demonstrated that the European public is against Turkey’s admission. A Eurobarometer poll in 2013—two years before the increased European fears that the continent was being flooded by Muslims—indicated that most Europeans don’t want Turkey in the EU. Some polls have shown 81% of the public (Austria) is against Turkey’s accession. The “most pro” was Romania with 60% against.

Europeans have a long list of reasons why they don’t want Turkey in the EU.

  • Turkey is not democratic. In fact, it is becoming more authoritarian every day under Erdogan’s inimitable leadership, pacem Adolf Hitler.
  • Turkey is not secular, despite its protestations.
  • Turkish “culture” is alien to Europeans.
  • Turkey is Muslim and veering towards fundamentalism.
  • Turkey illegally occupies northern Cyprus.
  • Turkey has poor relations with Greece.
  • Article 301—the law against “insulting the Turkish nation” is still in force.
  • Women’s rights are in the law books but are not implemented.
  • Conscientious objection to military service is not recognized in Turkey. Turkey and Azerbaijan are the sole pair–among the 47 members of the Council of Europe—which refuse to recognize conscientious objection as legal or offer alternatives to military service.
  • Turkey mistreats its Kurdish and Alevi minorities and intimidates minorities which openly embrace their Christian identities.
  • Europeans fear that because of its huge population (75 million and overwhelmingly young), Turkey would be entitled to the second-largest number of seats (after Germany) in the European Parliament.
  • Europeans fear Turkey might act as the Pied Piper who would bring other Muslim states—Morocco, Tunisia, etc.—into the EU further diluting the dominant Western European ethos.
  • Turkish judiciary, fundamental rights, education, social policy, company law, health protection, safety standards… are all red flags to the Europeans.

Many Europeans know that they are considered infidel (gavoor) by many/most Turks.

  • Turkey, which blindly thinks having a large population/market and the second-largest NATO army would be attractive to the Europeans, doesn’t realize that Europeans are not eager to have their markets deluged by cheap Turkish goods, more impoverished Turks immigrating to Europe, or having in its highest council a callow boy whose favourite modus operandi is violence.
  • Despite Ankara’s lubricious efforts, European states are not convinced an alien Turkey would enhance EU’s geostrategic position in the Middle East.
  • Europeans don’t trust Turkey because Ankara is an unreliable partner which switches sides without moral compunction. The most recent example of this Turkish proclivity is the brazen support of the homicidal ISIS.
  • Although the recognition of the Armenian Genocide by Turkey is not a crucial condition for accession, France has said that it would bring up the issue during negotiations. Previous president of the European Parliament (Martin Schulz) has said the recognition must be a precondition for Turkey’s EU accession. These are sweet-sounding words to Armenians but are of little value: they’re superfluous additions to the long list of requirements the Europeans have insisted Turkey accede to before being admitted to the European club as a full member.

In an analysis, based on the World Value Survey, social scientists Arno Tausch and Almas Hesmati have concluded that a “robust measurement scale of global economic, political and social values and Turkey’s place on them wields only a very qualified picture of Turkey’s place on the maps of global values.” This is a tortuous and academic way of saying Turkey has few values which are valued by the world.

And yet, Prime Minister Ahmet aka Smiley Davutoglu is certain Turkey will be a full member of the EU by 2023, one-hundred years after Ataturk gave birth to his bloody Republic of Turkey over the graves, property and historic rights of millions of Armenians, Greeks, Kurds, Arabs, Assyrians, Alevis…

In how many ways can Europeans tell Turkey to scram before Ankara gets the message?

What kind of government would keep chasing, for 57 years, a “beloved” which has said—in no uncertain terms—that it’s not welcome and is tolerated only because of Uncle Sam’s cudgel?

What kind of government?

  • A government which has no pride.
  • A government with no integrity.
  • A government which is not embarrassed when it begs, lies and cheats, and kills. A government whose genetic code has a dominant strand of obstinacy. After all, it refuses admit committing genocides; it refuses to recognize that the corrupt Ottoman days are long over; it refuses to recognize that the only reason “their” country exists is because Europeans and the Americans want a fence against Russia.
  • A government which has ordered its children to start their classes with the inane declaration “happy is the person who can say he is a Turk”.

Turkey: Frequently wrong, but never in doubt.

5 comments
  1. Very good article. One note

    Very good article.

    One note about US: although you are correct that presently US has taken the role of defending  and backing Turkey, Europeans themselves are not blameless. They were the defenders and protectors of Turkey, long before US became a global hegemon.

    During the Crimean war in mid 1800s, Russian forces had completely destroyed the Ottoman Turk aggressors and were ready to liberate occupied Constantinople from the Turkic yoke. England and France rushed in and saved the Turks. Had they not interfered, there would have been a little rump state for the nomad Turks to live in on Asia Minor, and certainly no Armenian Genocide.

    Kaiser’s Germany was a military ally of Ottoman Turks. Ottoman Fifth Army at Gallipoli was commanded by Otto Liman von Sanders, a German officer who had been head of the Military Mission sent to Turkey as advisors.  Many of the senior officers in the Fifth Army were also German. Military hardware was German.  Although Mustafa Kemal has been credited for the Turkish “win” at the Gallipoli.
    I put “win” in quotes, because Armenian political scientist Shirinyan has persuasively argued that England and France deliberately botched the Gallipoli campaign so as not to let Russia control the Dardanelles. According to Shirinyan, the agreement between WW1 allies England, France, and Russia was that after they threw out the Turks, Russia would control the Dardanelles. England and France later decided they did not want Russia to control the straights, so launched a phony landing designed to fail. Not too obvious though.

    Mustafa Kemal was on the ropes, almost finished around 1920. Bolsheviks, under Lenin's orders, rushed wagonloads of ammunition, new Mosin-Nagant rifles, cannon, and gold. Turks were again saved by others.  

    In 1943 Turks, supposedly neutral,  massed an invasion army at the border of Armenian SSR, awaiting the outcome of the Battle of Stalingrad. Had Nazis won there, Turk plan was to invade Armenian SSR and rush to Baku.
    Stalin did not forget this treachery. After the Nazi surrender in May 1945, the Red Army assembled a huge invasion force in Armenia and Georgian  SSRs.
    The plan was to liberate all of Western Armenia of the nomad Turks.
    USSR’s WW2 “allies” again saved the Turks. Churchill sided with Turks and convinced Americans to do likewise.

    Some theorize that the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were meant to frighten Stalin to back off.

    What does all this mean ?
    It means when it comes to nations, crime pays.
    Turks are in the advantageous position they are in, because they successfully committed Genocide of the indigenous peoples.

    Something for all Armenians to contemplate and  extract  lessons from. And, No: I don’t mean commit Genocide. But other lessons can be learned. One is, not allow ourselves to be in a situation, again, where something like that can be done to us.

    It is a jungle: we better not allow ourselves to become prey. Better have sharp teeth and claws, and a little more predatory attitude.

  2. Agree with Avery

    For all the research and analysis done by reputable historians, both Armenian and "odar",  the countries which have done the most damage to the Armenian nation are the English, French, Russian/Soviet and since WWI, the US– in the order of the damage they have inflicted upon the Armenians.

    1. Damages Inflicted by Americans

      Harry,

      Would you please elaborate on the damages done by the Americans on Armenia and Armenians by commission.

      Please do not cite the customary, that they should recognize the Genocide. Damages allegedly inflicted by omission can easily lead to argument but not debate because the expected benefits are just that, expected but not assured. Russia has recognized the Armenian Genocide. I do not find that the Russian pro or con Armenian policies are in any way linked to their recognition of the Genocide.

      1. Damages Inflicted by America

        Mr. Garabed, my contentions has nothing to do with the recognition of the Genocide. It is based on historical facts that have direct impact on the condition of present-day Armenia.
        First: The-ill advised Wilsonian Armenia that was proposed by President Wilson at the end of WWI. Although it would have been very nice if it had been implemented, it was like giving a sprawling mansion to a sick and homeless person. By the end of WWI there were insufficient Armenians left in Eastern Turkey to form a Greater Armenia.
        Second: The Hardbord and King-Crane Commissions reports advised President Wilson not to create a US Mandate for Armenia, listing financial and military commitments that  US had to make. 
        Third: President Wilson asked Congress for a Mandate for Armenia but the  Congress rejected his request.
        Fourth: Shortly after WWI ended President Wilson became ill and was more interested in establishing the League of Nations than spending time to deal with the Treaty of Sevres or the Treaty of Lausanne. The US never signed either treaty and Congress turned isolationist. The problem of Armenia got to be a problem for the Russians after Turkey signed the Treaty of Kars on Dec. 2, 1920. The Treaty of Lausanne was signed in 1923. Armenia did not sign the Treaty as she was a part of the USSR.
        Fifth: After WWII the Soviet Union tried to annul the Treaty of Kars, but Churchill blocked the attempt and convinced US not to support Soviet and Armenian territorial claims.
        I am aware that the US has Armenia more than any other country. But in those crucial hours after WWI, the US Congress failed to act.

  3. Need to Wake Up

    It's amazing how little Armenians understand the dangers the US poses to Armenia and it's amazing how little Armenians understand geopolitics.

    In a nutshell: Since the 1990s, the US has been supporting various Islamic insurgencies throughout the greater region where Armenia is located, including today in Syria. The US has been aggressively pursuing anti-Russian and anti-Iranian policies for decades. The US has been unconditionally supporting Turkey since the Second World War and has tactical nuclear weapons in Turkey. US-funded NGOs in Armenia constantly meddle in the internal affairs of the fledgling republic by exploiting the nation's many growing pains. The US hope is to foment sociopolitical unrest. The only thing the US would like to see happen in Armenia is the break of the country away from Russia and thus away from Russia's military protection.

    Therefore, the US is the single most-dangerous political entity Armenia faces because friends and allies of the US (Turkey, Israel, and the Islamists) are Armenia's enemies. Without US support, Turkey would not dare act against Armenian interests. Beside lip-service, all the US has done for Armenia is to saturate the country with toxic "values" such as globalization and westernization; to plant Western operatives such as Raffi Hovanissian, Vartan Oskanian and Paruyr Hayrikian; and line government officials' pockets with bribe disguised as loans and aid.

    Armenians need to wake up from their deep sleep and realize that US actions in the Middle East, Eastern Europe and the Caucasus have directly and indirectly been detrimental to Armenia. Had the US been successful in its policies against Russia, Iran and Syria, Armenia would have once again disappeared from the map.

    I reiterate: the political establishment in the US is the single most-dangerous foe Armenia has today. Armenians better wake up from deep sleep.

Comments are closed.

You May Also Like

Ի՞նչ Կը Մտածէ Միւս Թուրքը

Ներքոյիշեալ երկու յօդուածները ուղարկուած Թուրքիոյ պետական հարուածէն առաջ, էլեքթրոնային նամակատուփին հետ առնչուած թեքնիք պատճառներու բերումով չէին հրատարակուած. յապաղումով…
Read More