Comments on: Cyprus

By: FransGroenendijk

FransGroenendijk — Mon, 23 Feb 2004 00:52:00 +0000

“Given that this year will see the establishment of Iraqi self-government, and may see a civil war in Iraq, an anti-theocratic revolution in Iran, a war between Syria and Israel, a civil war in the Palestinian-occupied territories, the collapse of Musharraf’s regime in Pakistan, the collapse of North Korea, and a presidential election which might see the US turn significantly more protectionist, claiming that much geopolitical significance for the referendum in Cyprus is quite the stretch.” Yes, but very special to this issue is that it could trigger a chain of events all very positive. Of course this was the objective of getting rid of Saddam but that first step had lots of negative consequences immediately. On beforehand even. But otoh all that positive events need huge efforts still. Turkeys membership of the EU is not that unthinkable as some seem to judge it, ~~actually the discussion on Turkey’s membership in the Netherlands concentrates on whether Turkey’s membership will slip through without enough debate!~~ but it needs real courage from European politicians on international politics. I hope “Turkey” will play an important role in the upcoming EP-elections and indeed “that the EU will demand a complete cessation of torture as a precondition of entry for Turkey.”

By: Nigel Holland

Nigel Holland — Sun, 22 Feb 2004 22:36:10 +0000

The reason Cypriots are now ready to talk peace has nothing to do with EU or UN initiatives, these initiatives are the result of a desire for peace. The real reason is the economic disparity between the north and south. The economic liberalism of the south with it’s booming tourist trade etc has not gone unnoticed in the north, the Turkish Cypriots are just following the principles of enlightened self interest and want in on the action. I’ll rephrase that in language you may understand, capitalism is the root cause of peace in Cyprus.

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Sat, 21 Feb 2004 02:08:45 +0000

The tension between democracy and secularism in Turkey is a crucial part of my argument. Without the carrot of EU membership, it seems unlikely that this would have been resolved in a favorable way. Not only has the EU process encourage the military to stay in the barracks, but it has forced the Islamist parties, currently in government, to a moderate (essentially secularist) position, for fear of taking the blame for an EU rejection.

By: Anthony

Anthony — Sat, 21 Feb 2004 00:45:26 +0000

bp – while you argue wth enthymeme over just how democratic and secular Turkey really is or is not, you miss the larger points where Mr. Quiggin is wrong: That Turkey’s ability to “provide a model of a secular, democratic and increasingly prosperous state in a predominantly Islamic country.” depends on EU membership. It does not, though EU membership may improve its chances. The weaker claim gives lie to the idea that the referendum in Cyprus is that terribly geopolitically significant, as Turkey’s power as a model does not depend on EU membership. That bringing Turkey within the EU orbit is likely to be more geopolitically significant than anything else that might happen this year, or the replacement of Saddam Hussein. Given that this year will see the establishment of Iraqi self-government, and may see a civil war in Iraq, an anti-theocratic revolution in Iran, a war between Syria and Israel, a civil war in the Palestinian-occupied territories, the collapse of Musharraf’s regime in Pakistan, the collapse of North Korea, and a presidential election which might see the US turn significanty more protectionist,claiming that much geopolitical significance for the referendum in Cyprus is quite the stretch.

By: robin green

robin green — Fri, 20 Feb 2004 23:05:30 +0000

I sincerely hope that the EU will demand a complete cessation of torture as a precondition of entry for Turkey.

By: Matt Weiner

Matt Weiner — Fri, 20 Feb 2004 20:04:25 +0000

enthymeme—Turkey does seem to have the tension you describe, but that wasn’t what was at issue in this case. Wolfowitz wasn’t calling on the military to restrain the government from Islamism—he was calling on the military to impose an unpopular foreign policy. For more, I recommend the whole US (calling their opponents weak, or traitors, or fuzzy-headed), and the there seems to be a complete disconnect in world view between those that are in favor of a compromise (who mostly see it as the best thing for northern cyprus, and turkey, economically) and those who are against it (who mostly see it as giving away the store and creating a situation in which the evils of the late 1960s will be played out again).

By: enthymeme

enthymeme — Fri, 20 Feb 2004 16:40:42 +0000

Matt, Right. We have in Turkey the strange situation of secularism being in tension with the democratic process. If the military did not intervene, secularism would likely have been undermined by Islamist parties sweeping to power. So if the Turkish military is somehow prevented from interfering with the democratic process, and if that process is strengthened as a result of its entry into the EU, then a possible outcome could be that Turkey turns Islamist, and less secular. What was it about secularism and democracy from John Quiggin again?

By: enthymeme

enthymeme — Fri, 20 Feb 2004 16:33:55 +0000

Mr bp, Point out where Quiggins is being “triumphalist” or “claims triumph” “First, this is another victory for the boring old UN processes so disdained by unilateralists.” “Admission of Turkey . . . would dramatically change the dynamic of Middle Eastern politics. . . . With membership of the EU, Turkey would provide a model of a secular, democratic and increasingly prosperous state in a predominantly Islamic country. By comparison, the replacement of the odious Saddam Hussein . . . would fade into insignifance.” Again, Mr bp, I have pointed this out from the outset. I said: “My objection addresses [that] which is implicit in the first and third points he made re: “Let me count the ways.”” So again, I’d prefer we not talk in circles. Beef up your claims that Quiggins is wrong when he says that if Iraq becomes into Iran Version 2.0 it will have little historic significance. Little significance in comparison with Turkey’s assumed imminent entry into the EU. I claimed that Quiggin’s argument for this comparative insignificance is unsound. It is for you to show that his conclusion follows. Even if Iraq turns into a democratic Islamist government dominated by Shi’ites, it does not follow that such an outcome is an insignificant change from Saddam’s dictatorship. Can you show that it does? What in “democratic Islamist government dominated by Shi’ites” entails “comparative insignificance” in terms of a change in dynamic of Middle Eastern politics? Show me. Make your points in a sufficiently succint and coherent manner. For instance, I asked you above what you meant by a particular statement you had written, and you answered “yes” to all three (differing) alternatives Right, my mistake. Regarding just that statement of mine, then I meant interpretations (2) and (3). However, your three alternatives are differing but not mutually inconsistent. In general, I get the impression that Mr Quiggin is implying all three. You say he is not implying any of them. I am therefore asking you what is the point of his compare and contrast exercise then? (going so far as to insist that one of the sentences was precisely what you wrote even though I had edited it to change its meaning). Yep, my mistake. Tell me, do you also have strong feelings on the subject of school vouchers and socialist health care? No. But in general, I have strong feelings when I encounter poor logic and unsound arguments.

By: Matt Weiner

Matt Weiner — Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:49:59 +0000

3. Turkey’s military, while fostering secularity, have an unfortunate reputation for undermining its democratic processes And while we're discussing the Iraq war as a force for democracy in the Middle East, let us remember that in the run-up to the Iraq war the Bush government encouraged the military to undermine Turkey's democratic processes. On Turkish televisions, Paul Wolfowitz said that the Administration was disappointed that the Turkish military “did not play the strong leadership role on that issue [i.e., the Iraq debate] that we would have expected.” To continue quoting Josh Marshall, "Outside the context of Turkish politics, that statement might seem obscure or insignificant. But in Turkey the meaning seemed painfully clear: The United States wished the Turkish military had either overruled the elected government or perhaps even pushed it aside in favor of one more subservient to U.S. demands. As numerous Turkish commentators have noted, that’s an odd stance for a country now presenting itself as the champion of Middle Eastern democracy." It is not remotely clear that the Iraq war will create greater stability and democracy in the Middle East. If it didn't decrease stability and democracy in Turkey, that's not the Bush Administration's fault.

By: bp

bp — Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:36:57 +0000

Ms. enthymeme That was an exceedingly long post, quite difficult to read. May I ask that you 1. Calm down 2. Point out where Quiggins is being “triumphalist” or “claims triumph” 3. Beef up your claims that Quiggins is wrong when he says that if Iraq becomes into Iran Version 2.0 it will have little historic significance 4. Make your points in a sufficiently succint and coherent manner. For instance, I asked you above what you meant by a particular statement you had written, and you answered “yes” to all three (differing) alternatives, (going so far as to insist that one of the sentences was precisely what you wrote even though I had edited it to change its meaning). If you aren’t American or even Western (I am :-) then I apologize, but you do sound awfully annoyed at the allusions to the failure of unilateralism in Iraq, and that’s a pretty US attitude. Tell me, do you also have strong feelings on the subject of school vouchers and socialist health care?

By: enthymeme

enthymeme — Fri, 20 Feb 2004 14:38:51 +0000

Ms enthymeme stated: “Mr bp, Was my complaint that he took the positive outcome for granted?” Yes, it was. I cite: Are you suggesting that the EU ‘got it right’ while the US didn’t? If so, it behooves you to actually look at what you are comparing.

Uh, no it wasn’t. Stop equivocating. “Positive outcome” refers to Turkey’s successful entry into the EU. NOT the EU “getting it right”. Mr Quiggin is suggesting that EU-style rapprochement is better than American unilateralism by comparing Turkey with Iraq and suggesting that Turkey will be the more significant of the two with regards to changing the dynamic of Middle Eastern politics. My objection is that assuming Turkey enters the EU, Mr Quiggin’s argument remains unsound – Mr Quiggin is comparing apples with oranges. Assuming that Turkey doesn’t, lesser still does the conclusion follow. Assuming either, his conclusion (triumphalism with regards to rapprochement) does not follow. How is this saying that he is taking anything for granted? Please quote me to that effect instead of imagining things. Or you could, like me, ask if you’re not sure, you know. Turkey is not yet a member of the EU, and thus the question of getting it “right” or “wrong” is still open. Mr bp, with all due respect, you don’t seem to have read Mr Quiggin’s post. And really, if you haven’t, don’t waste my time. Mr Quiggin, if you recall, sought to justify his triumphalist pronouncements regarding EU or UN-type rapprochement by making an argument on the assumption that Turkey might be joining the EU. It is to that argument (and its premises) that my objections are addressed, and naturally, I do so by assuming Mr Quiggin’s premises/assumptions and seeing if his argument is valid. If it’s still an “open” question, as you say, then why is Mr Quiggin mouthing off about the apparent triumph of UN or EU-style diplomacy in the Mid-East? Shouldn’t your objections be addressed to Mr Quiggin then? It’s his argument and his premises, you know. I find your ripostes . . . most amusing. The other part of your complaint, that comparing the ‘multilateralist’ approach a la Turkey with the ‘unilateralist’ approach of carpet-bombing johny foreigner into democracy is an apples-and-oranges comparison, would be more plausible if you were to put better examples on the table. Mr bp, the example of Turkey vs. Iraq is Mr Quiggin’s, not mine. I have already pointed out the relevant differences between the two. Instead of addressing those, you claim to want “better” examples. That’s just evading the original question and the issues therein. EU-style ‘multilateralist’ diplomacy is not being practiced in the Israel-Palestine question by definition: three of the four biggest players are not using that stratagem (Israel, Palestine, and the US). So why didn’t EU engagement with Israel and Palestine succeed? Or EU engagement with the former Yugoslavia for that matter? The Oslo peace accords was as multilateral as it got, no? So, why didn’t it succeed? Why is the process a present day failure? Could it be because – gasp – it failed? See the relevant difference? Multilateralism works only for parties who care for it. Mr Hussein of the former Iraq didn’t, which is why you are comparing apples and oranges in assuming that multilateralism works as well for Iraq as for Turkey. Ditto w.r.t Libya. Qaddafi has been trying to kiss Western butt for over a decade, and finally he’s succeeded – seems to me that the kissy-kissy approach does work well when confronting hostile powers, no? You do realize, don’t you, that you just made my point in reverse? Recall that I said:

You might as well say that EU-style diplomacy is a continuing and continual failure with the Israelis with regards to Palestine, but US unilateralism triumphs in Libya. Ergo EU-style diplomacy fails to “change the dynamic” in Middle-East politics, while US unilateralism yields great results in comparison. Do you swallow that? No? Well, your triumphalism in this regard rings just as hollow.

So no, you don’t swallow that. And further, you think multilateralism with regards to Palestine has failed due to the unilateralist inclinations of the parties involved at Oslo. Yet you don’t think that unilateralist Iraq is going to do the same with regards to diplomatic overtures?! Be consistent, bp. Why the double standards? Apple and oranges, again. But I’m not going to get sidetracked. I ask again, as per my original post: How does Mr Quiggin’s conclusion follow from sound premises? And also, how is it that he compares apples to oranges, and is able to derive the conclusions he does? The future of Turkey is by no means writ in stone, and as the largest player in the Middle East, the EU is trying to nudge it on the right path. That’s all good, no? ?? Nobody suggested otherwise. Mr bp, my objections to Mr Quiggin’s reasoning were detailed in my first post. Let’s stop fudging the issues. Barry, If and when there is evidence of increased stability in the Middle East, associated with the removal of Saddam, you’ll have a right to assert that the removal of Saddam removed a major source of destability. Oh really? Do you not agree that Saddam was a major source of destability? If you do, it follows trivially that his removal is the removal of a major source of destability. The argument runs thus: Premise 1: Saddam was a major source of destability. Premise 2: Saddam was removed. Conclusion: A major source of destability was removed. Elementary logic, Barry. Do you disagree with premise 1? Of course, removing a major source of destability does not guarantee that net stability in the Middle East has increased (there might be other sources of destability exacerbated by said removal). Yet this does not change the fact that such a source has been removed. At any event, what has this to do with my original point – that the removal of Saddam obviously does significantly change the dynamic of Middle Eastern politics (in comparison to Turkey’s assumed imminent entry into the EU)? Nothing, apparently. Just a bit of hand waving. Mr bp, that rapprochement is not necessarily more successful than American-style unilateralism (which is not what you wrote, but possibly what you meant) Uh, it is what I wrote, and what I meant. I said that Mr Quiggin’s argument(s) for his conclusion (that one approach is better than another in the sense of being “significant”) are unsound because he’s comparing unlike cases that obviously require different approaches. And THEREFORE, one approach is not necessarily more successful than the other (in spite of Mr Quiggin’s suggestions to the contrary). that rapprochement when successful creates better outcomes than US-style unilateralism (whih is what you wrote, and is a tautology because, “successful” always implies “good outcomes”) Yes. that successful rapprochement creates better outcomes than successful unilateralism Yes too. Of all three possible interpretations it seems to me Mr. Quiggins is suggesting none of the above, and it is unclear even which possible interpretation you have in mind. I meant all three. Is he suggesting none of them? That’s why I asked if he did. If not, what is his point? What is the point of claiming triumph for rapprochement (“another victory”) in contrast with the “insignificance” of American unilateralism? No point, presumably? Indeed, I think Mr Quiggin is suggesting the above interpretations. Otherwise, what is the point of his compare and contrast exercise? What, pray tell? Again, this was asked from the outset. But no, you have to talk in circles instead of addressing my original post. Well you do seem angry, and it’s difficult to pin a direct connection between exactly what it is you are angry about, and Quiggin’s actual text. My guess is hurt national pride, and people who get affronted at the very suggestion that their country falls short of perfection every now and then make easy targets. Mr bp, if I do seem angry now, it’s because every now and again stupidity like yours grates. First, you try to rile by making offhanded personal remarks imputing anger. Now, you try to rile even more by assuming I’m American, and trying to diss me for it. Sorry to disappoint you, but I’m not even a Westerner. Though I can see how you have to resort to pathetic ad homs to irritate your interlocutors, instead of addressing what I say in a substantive manner. You insult readers’ intelligence with your reactionary jibing. But you know what? Let’s not waste my time and yours, so don’t bother replying.

By: bp

bp — Fri, 20 Feb 2004 13:14:56 +0000

Ms enthymeme wrote: “First, Mr Quiggin seems to me to be suggesting that EU-style rapprochement, when successful, entails better and more significant outcomes (in comparison to American style unilateralism).” Emphasis mine. I don’t follow you here. Is your point that John is suggesting (1) that rapprochement is not necessarily more successful than American-style unilateralism (which is not what you wrote, but possibly what you meant) (2) that rapprochement when successful creates better outcomes than US-style unilateralism (whih is what you wrote, and is a tautology because, “successful” always implies “good outcomes”) (3) that successful rapprochement creates better outcomes than successful unilateralism Of all three possible interpretations it seems to me Mr. Quiggins is suggesting none of the above, and it is unclear even which possible interpretation you have in mind. “All you seem keen to do is to impute being angry to your opponents” Well you do seem angry, and it’s difficult to pin a direct connection between exactly what it is you are angry about, and Quiggin’s actual text. My guess is hurt national pride, and people who get affronted at the very suggestion that their country falls short of perfection every now and then make easy targets.

By: Barry

Barry — Fri, 20 Feb 2004 13:14:15 +0000

enthymeme: “And the removal of Saddam Hussein hasn’t?! Apparently, you think that the removal of a major source of destability in the Middle East is “insignificant”, in comparison to Turkey’s entry into the EU. Can you show me how you draw such a conclusion? Or even begin to compare apples with oranges?” If and when there is evidence of increased stability in the Middle East, associated with the removal of Saddam, you’ll have a right to assert that the removal of Saddam removed a major source of destability.

By: Penelope

Penelope — Fri, 20 Feb 2004 13:08:06 +0000

“By comparison [with Turkey’s accession to the EU], the replacement of the odious Saddam Hussein with an imperfectly democratic Islamist government dominated by Shiites (the most plausible current outcome for Iraq) would fade into insignifance.” Mr. Quiggin, I would be interested to know if you think that Turkey would have as good a chance at accession in 2010 if Hussein’s government (or one run by one of his sons) were still in power and the EU were faced with the prospect of sharing a long common border with such a state? It seems to me that Hussein’s ouster might have significantly increased Turkey’s chances for EU membership. Penelope