Ciao!

Yeah, I found it strange that Turkey has been kept out of the EU for so long.
Consider:
it modelled its political and econnomic structure to the Western Europeans since 1923, was part of the western alliance during the cold war, is the only plural secular democracy in the muslim world, and has been with UN and NATO on international missions.
The main credible contention for EU to refuse is Turkey's record of human rights violations. Hmmm, also that Turkey has been in a deep recession. The wealthier EU countries don't want to shoulder the burdens of assisting poorer countries. Which I think is a fair point.
But then, look at the pros in the social aspect, that including Turkey full membership would present a strong msg to the muslim world that people can keep its (aspects of its) faith AND be prosperous WITH European counterparts.
Turkey's inclusion is a matter of time.

Good points. But I'm not sure if Turkey will be invited to join the EU any time soon. The "old" European countries seem to still think Europe is only for "Europeans" (despite the geographic fact that Turkey is in Europe.

If the problems w/ Turkey were primarily human rights issues, then the drive by Germany and others to help Croatia into the EU is odd (there is the little problem of "ethnic cleansing", aimed at Bosnian muslims coincidently).

And if problems w/ Turkey's entrance into the EU were economic, then why invite Poland and other economically weak former communist countries? Odd.

Turkey's been a good European ally. Even at the cost of losing any potential leadership (and influence) over the Arab countries.

So in return for its willingness to turn itself into a front-line state and risk nuclear obliteration to help defend France, Germany, and the rest of Europe during the Cold War, its European "allies" are not willing to deploy anti-missile batteries and chemical-biological safety equipment to the Turks in the event Iraq attacks them. That's ingratitude of the highest level. The request isn't even for hostile deployments. Turkey's just asking for extra security in case Iraq (for whatever reason) decides to invade it (they do share a border).

I'm beginning to think that the UN and NATO are dead. The last victims of the Cold War.

Is there any connection between France's persucution of the Algerians & their resistance to allowing Turkey into the union? Could one draw the point that it seems as though they just don't like muslims?

(and, btw, you're answering so many questions that I've had about foreign relations- thank you- and thanks for keeping in mind being objective- a stance that many people forget)

I'm not sure whether xenophobia is at the heart of refusing Turkey's entry into the EU. But it may be irrelevant -- all that matters is whether Turkey (and other Muslim countries) think that's the case. At some point, Turkey might stop trying and decide that it'd be better off re-establishing itself as a leader of the Arab-Muslim world (a position it turned away from in the 1920s). Turkey was, after all, once the heart of the Ottoman Empire and could be a natural leader in the Middle East. If it wanted to. A Turkey spurned by Europe and cast adrift into the arms of Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria is not a pleasant thought ...

Writing from Germany, I'd like to correct a couple of mistakes.

Germany, France, and Belgium did not "refuse", but delay defensive deployments to Turkey (because they felt that would send the undesirable signal that war is imminent).

After the Second World War, France did not make it a point to "go it alone". France and Germany have always been the core of the EC/EU - together.

Turkey may have "modeled" its political system after Western democracies, but that doesn't mean it is one. I don't how many times the political system of Turkey has been "saved" by military coups in the last twenty years. Democracy is rather a question of culture than of political system. Germany has only been a democracy for fifty years. Turkey lags decades behind. (If not centuries, see below.)

Geographically, Turkey is not in Europe. Or rather, only a very small part of Turkey is in Europe (parts of Istanbul and some surroundings).

The problem that the EU has with Turkey is largely that the EU itself does not know if it wants to be an economical or a cultural union. If the latter, then Turkey probably does not fit in. It simply does not share decisive historical developments with Europe. And even in economical unions, it is far easier to reach consensus if all members share some fundamental common views, which may not be the case with Turkey. (E.g., Islam forbids taking interest on loans.)

Turkey did not turn away from its lead position in the Arab world but was driven away from it when the Ottoman empire collapsed in WWI. And I don't see Turkey in a position to get into such a lead position again.

In a nutshell: I've been following some political discussions on the net and in chats lately, and it seems to me that many Americans talk about European politics without knowing much about it. (It's the same vice versa, of course.) I think that's the deeper reason (or one of them) of this whole diplomatic crisis: a severe lack of cross-atlantic understanding.

You're right, of course, on the issue of Turkey. It's not a "full" democracy, but it's fairly close. I think joining the EU would strengthen and deepen Turkey's democracy.

I think your point about EU as a cultural union is troubling. Denying Turkey admittance into the EU because of its "culture" is somewhat racist. I have no other way to put it. I didn't realize Europe came w/ a "white's only" sign.

I agree that many Americans don't know much European history. And vice versa. But I also think that there's a more fundamental problem: America is a very different kind of country that many Europeans don't understand. We are the first country founded on abstract principles (our Declaration of Independence) and not as a "nation" We pride ourselves in being a "melting pot" - even if we fail in its application at times. For Europeans, their identity is part of some long cultural evolutionary process. For Americans, it's not. Our identity is based on abstract philosophical values - the "American dream."

A comparison:

Most Americans agree with Mexico being a member of NAFTA. But most Americans would not want Mexico to become a part of the USA.

The EU is definitely more than NAFTA. The EU has a parliament, a court of justice, and will have some kind of president or government. There even is a likelyhood that the EU will turn into something like "the U.S. of E.".

With a little stretch of imagination, assume that all Turks emigrate to the northern part of Mexico. Assume 70 million Muslims build a new nation called "Mexiturkey". Would this country become the 51st state of America, if it wanted to?

The EC used to be primarily an economic union. The EU is a lot more. I guess most Americans haven't realized that. (To be fair: Many Europeans - and I guess most Turks - haven't either.)

> We are [...] founded on abstract principles
> (our Declaration of Independence). [...]
> Our identity is based on abstract
> philosophical values - the "American dream."
That's what I would call a "cultural union".

Interesting comparison. But the EU has been around for half a century, NAFTA ony about ten. There's still time.

And I think you still misunderstand the difference in a cultural union for "Americans". The beauty of ours is that it has nothing to do w/ race, religion, or ethnicity.

I should have written "Turxico"...