±«Óătv

I think reading the comments made in various fora on the subject is educational and a wonderful insight into the paranoid knee-jerking cesspool that is popular opinion.

You can write as much as you like, in the most balanced and objective manner possible, but it's not going to make a blind bit of difference to people's opinions. If it involves the word "Islamist", roll out the bile.

Burnett's comments are eminently rational.

Let's hope he represents a coming trend in the ±«Óătv.

I agree Turkey is worth coverage.

However, I never understood why ±«Óătv can ever manage to cover Turkey with precision.
A high calibre establishment like ±«Óătv seems to repeat the same mistake over and over when covering any news regarding Turkey;
the capital of Turkey is not Istanbul but Ankara.
And here, in editor's case, his name is Mustafa Kemal AtatĂĽrk. Who established the capital in Ankara as opposed the existing Ottoman capital of Istanbul.

I would also like to add that it is only the current Turkish government would like to join to EU at the moment . Opinion polls in Turkey suggest that majority of the Turks are against the EU membership. I haven't yet come across any European news coverage of this angle.

I do not agree that what happens in Turkey will have an impact on the evolution of democracy in Muslim states. This was not the case for some 85 years of existing democratic Turkish state.
I feel it is just the other way round; what happens in Muslim states seem to be having an impact on Turkish state. This is where the ruling party AKP comes in the scene; a very new and somehow so quickly-so powerful political party...

The difference between Malaysian elections and Turkish escape me. Neither are 'democracies' in the true sense of the word, but neither is Britain.

Turkey is a republic and the fact that the ruling party could be disbanded by an unelected court of 11 proves that it is not a democracy.

What IS true to say is that Turkey is a muslim country with unprecendented human rights and freedom of speech, which still has some monumental problems to overcome before even thinking of EU membership. The first two are raising its GDP by 100% - the rest of Europe cannot bankroll 110 million turks, and solving the Kurdish problem permanently and peacefully.

Turkey is a very important country to cover. It is effectively a gateway between the Western ideals of democracy and the general ideals in the Middle East (note general) of monarchies of despots whose setups are essentially a 'fig leaf over absolutism' (Liebknecht).

The two ideals haven't mixed well. The democracy in Turkey still seems relatively unstable and they are now neither fully accepted by Europe, nor the Muslim states, which is where public opinion leans.

Turkey is a land full of contradictions, its stance on Israel and its continued disagreements with Greece do make it a good country to report on.

Turkey will never join Europe. Turks won't admit to the Armenian genocide, and the current setup of Turkey isn't in line with the rest of their cultural allies. Turkey is a prototype for the Middle-Eastern states. If Turkey fails, the middle-east will not bow to Americas wishes of democracy.

The status in countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan in regard of democracy seems very similar to that of Weimar Germany and post WWI Austria. Both nations saw the democracies which were thrust upon them as an alien concept imposed by hostile conquerors. Historians generally argue both were doomed to fail from their inception. If Turkey turns it back on the whim of joining Europe, it seems the Middle East will be a melting pot of pirates, extremists and private armies for a long time yet.

Thanks, Alistair Burnett:

Talking TURKEY, is an important story, when breaking news happens from the country...

It has been a very negative week for the
country...

Turkey has high aspirations of joining the European Union. But is the time right or will it ever be right? Opinions differ sharply. In all its contradictions, Turkey is important to Europe as well as to Asia. It is a perfect bridge but bound to arouse a lot of controversy! So the pros and cons have to be judged so very carefully. A key idea is that secularism should not only be preached but be practised as well. Once that is completely evident then Turkey will be received with open arms. The ruling party should realise that. Otherwise the path to joining the European Union will most certainly be rocky.

Coverage on Turkey is essential. Its a country of 75 million that aspires to join the EU and is the opposite to all the countries already in the EU: Its not a Liberal democratic country, its a relatively poor country and unfortunately doesn't have a good human rights record.

As a Greek-Cypriot, I'd like to see a Turkey in the EU because Turkey will have to negotiate. The days of threatening war on its neighbours is now finally over. The Turkish Armed Forces will now have to play a reduced role and not get involved in Turkish politics. If the Generals continue to interfere then Turkey will never be allowed into the EU. It will be unthinkable. Can you imagine a British General Chief of Staff telling the British Prime Minister what to do? Of course not, well unfortunately thats what happens in Turkey and its happening now.

They say Turkey will join in 15 years time but I can't see it. There needs to be a Liberal revolution in Turkey. Only then will you see the role of the Armed Forces in Turkish society reduced, freedom for women to wear what they want when they want, a solution to the Cyprus problem, no more dog fights between Turkish and Greek warplanes, an acceptance of an independent Kurdish state, an agreement to start direct bilateral talks with Armenia and lastly, finally accept what the whole world knows, that the Ottoman armed forces committed genocide on the Armenian people all those years age.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

It is interesting that the Turks are always guilty of something or other (mostly genocide it seems). I'm sure that if it is even faintly possible the Jewish genocide would be blamed on the Turks too.

How democratic is the EU anyway? At least in Turkey if something "undemocratic" happens, the whole world seems to find out about it. How many "undemocratic" incidents happen in the EU that get swept under the carpet? If you think there aren't any, then that would explain your attitude to anything outside the EU.

Turkey doesn't need the EU. It would do much better without it. The EU is a leech that will suck the life out of Turkey. Turkey does need it's army. If it weren't for the army we would be foolish enough to give in the preposterous demands of the Greeks, Armenians and Kurds.

Turkey would do better than to admit to anything that is not provable in the international courts. If the British could not prove the so-called "Armenian Genocide" in its courts back during WW1, and they were desperate to prove it, how are the Armenians going to prove such a preposterous claim so many years later? Oh well, it is always easier to believe what we want to rather than look at the facts. Why should we let facts get in the way of the greater "Armenia/Greek/Kurdish" dreams?

Full membership to EU does not suit Turkey's interests.
Loss of territories and slavery to the European ideals are unthinkable and unacceptable for Turks since the day the Turkish independence war started.
Not much changed since that day in Europe, apart from the obvious jargon.

The EU aspiration only wished by the chain of unsuccesful pro-western puppets goverments of Turkey.
I wonder who is fuelling them for this aspiration and why?

#10. On the contrary- anyone responsible for the Armenian genocide (and whether you believe it or not there WERE a hell of a lot of massacres of many ethnic groups, not least turks themselves in the ottoman empire around that time) is dead. Any apology would be about as deeply meaningful as Tony Blair apologising for Britain's role in the slave trade.

They'd lose nothing in real terms and maybe gain some respect in the same way that Germany has from addressing their past.

I wonder why you claim that this massacre is 'preposterous' though. Hitlers holocaust, Stalins gulags, Pol Pot's killing fields or even the Balkan slaughters of the mid 90's just up the road from Turkey happened. The alleged Armenian genocide is not 'preposterous' at all... its 'plausible' and possibly even probable. As for proof- start looking for mass graves at the alleged massacre sites. There are still plenty or remains in the Katyn forest from when Stalin massacred 10,000 polish officers.

Ofcourse so called genocide is plausible for the emperialist agenda.
Writing and re-writing their version of history is an old occupation of the west.
That's what all they have done so far....
Who believe in their lies?
Whoever wants to believe, because it will give them the goodies.
And a bunch of ignorant and gullible citizens of the system.

By the way, this Armenian thing is not related to the above issue.
But certain diaspora have a habit of jumping on every possible subject that is about Turkey and make it into so called genocide blog.
I've told that this actually is a career for diaspora...

people voted for AKP (Justice and development party ) because of their economic policies and success and their European Union ambition, today they are seen as most Liberal and Democrat party in Turkey.

Majority of people in Turkey do supports Reforms and want more and more democracy more frredoms and rights...and there are still strong support for EU membership...

Majority of people in Turkey can not see any other alternative party to govern the country.
some called AKP as "conservative Pro-Eu party", some called "Liberal Democrats" but AKP's policies actually very close to any Social Democrat Party in Europe.



as in many countries ultra nationalists in Turkey also against European Union.

We see many right wing parties, organisations, newspapers campaigning against European Union all around the Europe, including UK...

so crisis in Turkey wasn't about AKP's "islamic ambitions or Anti-Secular activities", it was all about AKP's "European Union" ambitions...

Nationalists tried to get AKP banned, because AKP was Pro-EU, but Turkey's constitutional court has ended political uncertainty, voting not to close down the AKP.

Now again AKP leader and Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan says that the AKP would now seek to push Turkey along the path of modernisation, to prosperity.

“This road will carry us to full membership of the EU,” prime minister Mr Erdogan said. “There is no way back.”

So a political party determined to be part of EU and Western World can not be a Taliban or theocrats or "islamic" at the same time.....!

Turkish people living with Secular democracy since 1923. And %99 of the population doesn't have problem with secularism.

Democratic, Modern, Secular Turkish Republic will benefit to EU and Western World and will be a good example for other countires in the region.

I disagree.
Desperate Turkish public voted AKP because of the lack of political choice at the time in Turkey.
AKP offers neither liberal and nor democratic solutions.
Only AKP think-tank's propaganda will suggest the opposite, no doubt.

There has been no "Reforms" or"freedoms" or "rights" brought by AKP, they are the spins of the AKP think tank who take regular spin courses in EU.
AKP only brought more IMF depth and higher inflation rates of %44 .

There is no more any support for EU membership, let alone astrong one...

I agree that majority of people in Turkey can not see any other alternative party to govern the country. This all has been arranged, so a party established only 6 years ago with ambigious funds could pass the election hurdle.

I don't care whatever the AKP is called by whom. It is an obvious right wing, emperialist political party, established and supported by the West and no doubt serves to the Western agendas.
They can be anything even social democrat by European standards but what the hell, we see the state of the so called Social Democracy in Europe...

I'm not so sure what "ultra" nationalism is, it does not sound more intense just by adding the world "ultra" before the it.
It sounds plain stupid.
Are you suggesting that countries like Switzerland ultra nationalist because they are not in the EU?
Nothing is wrong with nationalism anyway.
What is wrong with trying the maintain national interest? It will only annoy the global multinational fat cats.
I personally haven't got a problem with this. Neither do majority of world citizens...

I don't actually see many right wing parties, organisations, newspapers campaigning against European Union all around the Europe, including UK. All I see is the opposite the emperialist or globalist agenda. Not so suprising since they own the media all over.

I also agree that crisis in Turkey wasn't about only AKP's "islamic ambitions or Anti-Secular activities".
The crisis is this, combined with the AKP's "European Union" ambitions. They two are very related anyway.
Religion can be used as an instrument for exercising power.

It is not the nationalists who tried to get AKP banned. It was the sovereign state.
It seems like a pathetic attemp, as if the state appeared as they were doing something about the whole shambles. But the actual bussines go on as always....

Naturally Mr Erdogan says that the AKP would seek to push Turkey along the path of modernisation, to prosperity since the day1.
It's his obligation to do this.
His achievements so far has pushed Turkey down the economic failure. More desperation = foreign depth and chaos in internal affairs and a weak foreign policies will be remembered as his legacies.

It is true that Turkish people were living with secular democracy since 1923.
It is not the ordinary citizens have a problem with secularism. AKP has the problem with it. They keep pressing religion so the opression can be applied and justified, like in Saudi Arabia.
That is West's biggest ally...

"What happens in Turkey will have an impact on the evolution of democracy in Muslim states." Point taken, but without stating whose definition of "democracy" is to be used, the point is useless. Allowing the freedoms to women and the respect they they enjoy in western democracies (read "EU") is not something Muslims - even "liberal" Muslims (wherever they are!) - are inclined to do, as witnessed in the new democracy of Iraq. Their core beliefs are just too different from ours no matter how "liberal" they may become; they need westernization, and in my opinion they are not about to accept it. The real reason Turkey wants EU membership is so that they can feed their people adequately and procreate further at our expense. At best, they can be given a favorable status as a trading partner, but Turkey neither belongs nor deserves full EU membership; acceptance by the EU would constitute a major step toward self-destruction.

* 16 YENDIS 39 ;

Turkey has brought an important economic benefit to the European Union even before her accession to the Union.

In 1996, Turkey entered into the Customs Union with Europe, whereas every other European Union member country joined the Customs Union after their accession.

the Customs Union with Turkey has brought advantages for European Union companies for whom it opened a new market, while creating serious new challenges for Turkish companies. Furthermore, the promised financial support from the European Union was not released and Turkey lived through this process without European Union financial assistance.

Despite the unkept promises of the European Union, Turkey and Turkish companies have been able to cope with the pressure of their European rivals and became important players in their own right.

Today in terms of European Union imports, Turkey is EU's 7th most important trade partner, while its ranks as 6th in exports.

The Turkish economy had the biggest GDP growth rate in Europe with 7.8 percent ...

Within 15 years, Turkey is expected to reach a population of 80 - 85 million. Such a large, dynamic, and young Turkey with a rising purchasing power will no doubt become an even more important market for the European Union.

Turkey would create a safe bridge between the democratic world of Europe and the undemocratic Islamic world of the Middle East as it has the unique position of being a secular country with a fully functioning democracy .

Given Turkey’s achievements since the establishment of the Modern Republic and most notably its dedication to security and democracy, Turkey sets a strong example for Middle Eastern countries.

Turkey’s membership will prove that the European Union stands for common values and ideas rather than only a common religion, and this will help the European Union become a larger, more strategic player.



If you are concerned about the predominant religion of Turkey please remember that Turkey is NOT an Islamic country. Turkey is a secular country with Muslim population.

In Turkey, secularity is the warranty of democracy. Contrary to other countries with Muslim populations, the people of Turkey are free to live as they wish and are not subject to any religious bans, obligations or religious authorities. In that sense, people can live their daily lives without any social or religious pressure from anyone. This is one of the features Turkey is most proud of.


And it was largely Anatolian traditions that really shaped livesin Turkey, not religion. As an example, traditional dances in Anatolia, which date back hunderds of years, always involve men and women together, which is quite opposite to what traditional Islam calls for.
Additionally, you will be surprised to learn that the Turkish national drink is raki. An alcoholic drink isn’t really what an Islamic country is supposed to drink freely, is it?

I spend most of my time criticising the ±«Óătv, but will now raise my hat to you. A story that is not about Jamaican sprinters or the USA is so rare.
Turkey is a wonderful, beautiful, historic and important country, and coverage of events there is a must.
There are 2 points I should like to raise.
The terrorist atrocities referred to are committed by Kurdish militants who wish to re-establish Kurdistan. These terrorists are sheltered by American troops, who occupy the 'peaceful' north of Iraq, where the Kurds hold power. If the AK Party were really trying to bring Islamic fundamentalism into politics by stealth, why would Islamic fundamentalists be attacking the country? The ±«Óătv and American media have echoed both governments propaganda about the Kurds because of their support in ousting Saddam Hussein, which was not done out of any love of the West, nor desire for free democracy, but purely as a step towards autocracy and the re-establishment of a fundamentalist Islamic Kurdistan. This makes a mockery of the so-called 'War on Terror'.
My second point is that, as you have stated, the majority of Turkeys electorate is Islamic, and although secular, its politics should acknowledge this. It is exactly the same in the USA and Europe. George W claims God told him to invade Iraq, Western leaders say non-elected monarchies should be dissolved (eg Saudi Arabia, UAE, etc) yet cow-tow to the Pope (elected by a conclave). Anglican Bishops are automatically made members of the House of Lords. Have France, the USA, the UK, Spain, Italy or Germany ever had a non-Christian leader? No, because they are Christian countries, though other faiths are free to practice their religions, just as Christians can freely practice in Turkey
The West and, most importantly, Europe should really throw its full support behind the Turkish government, country and people, and hold it up as a beacon to other countries, whatever their faith, as a model to be copied.
I would welcome Turkey as an EU member state, and hope that the ±«Óătv will one day regard the country as worthy of having a reporter based there 24/7 365 days a year.