Turkey’s President Mr. Abdullah Gul, put forward his vision for a democratic Middle East with its own E.U.-style structure and functions. He never of course commented on what will happen with Turkey's E.U. membership bid that has been pending for decades.
Is Turkey fed up of waiting and decided to set up its own club, or does President Gul see a place for his country as a “bridge” between the two regions? Perhaps this is another bluff to send a message to Europe. Are the Turks turning to the East to establish their influence and what will all this mean for us?
Is Turkey fed up of waiting and decided to set up its own club, or does President Gul see a place for his country as a “bridge” between the two regions? Perhaps this is another bluff to send a message to Europe. Are the Turks turning to the East to establish their influence and what will all this mean for us?
Either way, it’s not the only time that recently we’ve heard of plans for new organizations, modeled after the E.U. Last month the Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, announced that he wanted to see a Eurasian Union set up by 2015 incorporating Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan, with its headquarters in Moscow.
Some in Europe and E.U. fear such moves and are suspicious of them. Perhaps they always see as threat whatever comes from Russia and the East and if they can not be part of it, they are becoming skeptical. Perhaps they do not want to let go Turkey out of their sphere of influence and are afraid of Turkey or Russia becoming too big and powerful.
I do not see why Europe should be afraid when other regions are forming blocks. There are blocks of nations all over the World: ASEAN, AU, MERCOSUR, NAFTA, you name it. So what if the Russians and the Turks want to create their blocks. Mr. Sarkozy created the Mediterranean Union. If any leader can satisfy his ego and leave a legacy by creating a new "Union" of nations, so be it!
What does the Mediterranean Union has achieved so far anyway? Do we ever read about what it does, how it works and what are its functions? While the E.U. is often scrutinized and blamed for being undemocratic, no one cares about what does Mr. Sarkozy's brainchild focus on and how it influences us. So will those two new "Unions" be just another club of nations cooperating, or can they ever challenge E.U./Europe's hegemony?
On the other hand, such initiative by the Turks will perhaps be the solution to the Turkish E.U. membership saga. If we do not want them in, then set them free and be honest with them. Are we afraid that two new strong blocks in our neighborhood will mean more competition? Perhaps that will give us a kick up the back side to get a grip, solve our differences and proceed with necessary reforms.
We should also re-approach Russia, our relationship with this country and not fear them.Our attachment to the hip with America is not good for us. We should have good relations both with America and Russia. Be an equal partner to them, not their sidekick and little toss-ball. We should pursue more independent foreign policies from USA, reestablishing our relationship with the Americans but also Russia, Turkey, China, Brazil and India.
All European nations should join the EU, that means both Ukraine and hopefully even Belarus. Russia and the EU should renegotiate immigration, freedom of movement, free trade and other bilateral agreements, while the Russians should expand their influence in central Asia. In that way, though Russia will never be an E.U. member state, it will contribute in the increasing European influence in the central Asian region. With Turkey we could do the same for the Middle Eastern Region and the Southern Caucasus.
If we keep good relations with those two nations, re-approach them and set up new, crystal clear bonds of alliance, friendship and cooperation, I believe that it can be a win win situation for all. If we do not want Turkey in E.U. we should form a different close kind of relationship with them. Allow them to expand their influence in the Middle East, and through them we could increase our own influence without us having always to intervene.
What we should give Turkey and Russia back of course is another matter. I guess that is a topic for a good debate. If the Norwegians enjoy all E.U. citizens' rights without being a member, then perhaps that is a suggestion.
Of course we will have to guard our interests and make sure that those two new "Unions" if they ever materialize, do not pose a threat to us. It is down to us to get a grip and start thinking as a unit, supporting each other, backing up each others' interests and protect each others' borders. If we are truly united then no one could challenge Europe.
We do have so much going on for us and we should be engaging in a positive and open manner with our neighbors, not be skeptical or suspicious of them. There is no need to impose our will and interests on our neighboring nations or blocks. We can achieve so much more if we have them as allies.
Will they of course want to cooperate with us? Well Europe is Russia's most important customer when it comes to gas and oil. And if we were not too pro-American perhaps the Russians would behave differently towards us. Their interest in the rest of the continent was always there.
Some E.U. countries of Eastern Europe that were under the Soviet thumb might think differently. But things have changed now. Europe if becomes truly united, it has no need to fear Russia anymore. Turkey has long standing trade and historical ties with Europe as well, why do we always have to push them away?
One would think that such actions would take place right in the beginning of the bail out negotiations, not now.
Mr. Papandreou lied to the Greek public many times before, like when he reassured them that Greece has money and no bail out would be needed. He also promised them no more austerity cuts after the first ones were announced.
Then after trying so hard to stamp out any protest or opposition, he announces out of the blue a referendum. Of course after a mounting pressure by his European counterparts, he then withdraws the referendum option while fighting for his job.
Was his action a gaff, a bluff or a well calculated act? Some claim that it was a mistake to plan a referendum. But suddenly, the focus of the crisis in Greece went from the austerity cuts, the suffering and fight for survival of the Greek public, to if Greece will stay in the eurozone or even EU itself.
His actions certainly act as a blackmail to the Greeks, by giving them two options. Either you accept the austerity measures, or you are out! Of course we knew that he won't go ahead with it, simply because we knew that the outcome would be a secure NO.
The Greek public for the record never questioned their country's EU membership. They just can't take any more cuts. But by voting NO they would unwillingly put in question the country's future in the euro-zone and EU. So either you say yes and "democratically" accept the cuts, or you are out of the club.
Others claimed that he tried to show himself seemingly caring for his people and give them a "democratic" choice. So where was democracy in the beginning of the crisis, when salaries were slashed up to 40% and taxes rose to 23%?
Why didn't he practice "democracy" then, instead of using lying, bullying and propaganda in order to make the Greek Parliamentarians to vote for the austerity measures? And not just once, but for two bail out packages, the second just to repay the first one.
Another opinion says that in this way he just tried to blackmail Greece's European partners, threaten them so they can ease on their demands of Greece. He knew that if the Greeks were given a referendum, they would vote NO and that certainly would mean the end of the country's euro membership. And if Greece leaves the euro, it is most likely that the rest of the "peripheral" euro-zone members will follow suit.
In that way the euro currency's own future is put in doubt, if the Greeks decide to leave. By casting a doubt over Greece's euro membership, he actually tried to threaten his European counterparts and make them back off their irrational demands. If that is the case, then it certainly indicates the real state of the European "Union," where the rich and powerful members are definitely bully the weaker ones.
What is going on in Greece right now is a pretty frightening scenario. It is no different from Britain during the early '80s and the "Thatcherite" policies. We hear on the media on a daily basis, about new cuts and austerity measures, plans to reform the country, different scenarios of potential disaster.
Jobs to be cut, sell out of all national companies and resources. Merging of hospitals, universities,ministries and local authorities, in an effort to weaken any social services and coherence. Imagine the stress that the Greek public are going through. Which of the global media ever focused on this aspect of the crisis?
Greece is forced to sell out its national assets to its lenders. It is doubtful that the austerity measures are to shape up the Greek economy, rather to satisfy the global markets and economists and end the so called "European protectionism." By that of course they mean the European and Greek social model, that is loathed by many global financiers.
Greece's social policies were outdated of course and needed to be reformed, but not by impoverishing the people. All it needed was a determined and skillful leader, that Greece lacked for sure. Now the Markets attack the euro and its members, in order to force reforms that will favor the capitalist system and its powerhouse, the Markets themselves.
Recently in Ireland they discovered a “mistake” which revealed that the country has an extra 3.6 billion euro in its accounts. Yet no consideration to redesign the up-coming new austerity plan for 2012.Since the country has an extra 3.6 € billion, why doesn't the Irish Government put it towards the debt and lift some weight of the backs of the people?
As if austerity must be placed on the shoulders of the citizens at all costs. Money appear and disappear by “mistake” in Ireland and the Prime Minister of Greece lies on the country's finances. So are there any doubts still, that this crisis is designed to transform Europe's social policies, starting from the least progressive members like Greece?