02-06-2010, 06:05 PM
Turkey was brought into NATO in order to guard the Black Sea, one of three of the USSR's outlets to Ocean, the others being the Baltic and Vladivostok/Khabarovsk on the Pacific. Turkey's presence in NATO was a strategic consideration, their history vis-a-vis Germany in World War II was on again/off again. It made internal sense for the Ataturk agenda of moving closer or joining the West. If TUrkey were subjected to the criteria the states in the NATO expansion waves were subject to--democratic government, established democratic institutions, respect for basic human rights and civil liberties--it couldn't have been a member in, say, 1997 or 2003, or whenever Poland joined, or the Baltic states. Turkey was further "defanged" during the Cuban Missile Crisis when Kennedy agreed to make Turkey off limits to nuclear missiles in exchange for Krushchev pulling missiles out of Cuba. Turkey was supposed to be some sort of bridge to CENTO and ultimately SEATO in the collective security alliance of alliances but these never really took off for various reasons.
If NATO members are still pretending they are anything more than a tool for US/UK hegemony, this incident is a kind of watershed, for them, at least. Of course Germany and Turkey have fairly deep ties because of the gastarbeiter phenomenon leading to cross-cultural understanding. Turkey's status has never been anything less than any other member's even if the considerations for Turkish membership were initially based on geopolitics rather than shared values. What Peter Presland's repost realyl hints at, but which isn't stated explicitly, is that Article 5 of NATO, invoked by the US after 9/11 to invade Afghanistan to depose the Taliban and capute al Qaeda, was invoked under false pretenses: the US did 9/11, and more and more people inside of NATO and out know this is the truth. This is the first time Article 5 was ever invoked, it is the second time (outside Yugoslavia and Kosovo) NATO has been deployed outside member-states and it is based on a lie by one of the member-states, supposedly the most important member, the US.
The other aspect is about control of the US. If Israel controls the US, and the US controls NATO, then Israel controls NATO. Doubtless some Israeli politicians would like to think this is true. Many US politicians would gallantly submit to Israeli rule and would place the treayt organization at Israel's disposal. The other members see it otherwise.
That leaves a block in NATO of everyone besides the US, and possibly Canada and the UK, at odds with the idea that NATO exists to serve Israel. In other words, all the EU countries, minus, possibly, Britain. So it falls to the EU to deal with thsi violation of the Geneva Convention, the UN Charter and the NATO charter. It's a deal-breaker. It divides NATO, it divides the UN and it could divide an already weakened EU.
Within the EU there is strong sentiment against Turkish membership. Turkey sees its future as inside Europe. There is a Muslim/Christian-Western Secular divide, there is a divide over immigration into the EU and there's a slight possibility of an Islamic divide, although the cards seem to be stacked toward Islamic cooperation against Israel.
Israel could only have made such a provocative move after consultations with the US and others, or if there was knowledge of an impending larger conflict. It's no accident it took place on Veterans' Day in the United States, just as Cast Lead took place around Christmas after CIA agent Obama-Soetoro was allegedly elected but not yet inaugurated. Then as now Obama-Soetoro failed to condemn Israel's gross violation of the norms of Western civilization.
If NATO members are still pretending they are anything more than a tool for US/UK hegemony, this incident is a kind of watershed, for them, at least. Of course Germany and Turkey have fairly deep ties because of the gastarbeiter phenomenon leading to cross-cultural understanding. Turkey's status has never been anything less than any other member's even if the considerations for Turkish membership were initially based on geopolitics rather than shared values. What Peter Presland's repost realyl hints at, but which isn't stated explicitly, is that Article 5 of NATO, invoked by the US after 9/11 to invade Afghanistan to depose the Taliban and capute al Qaeda, was invoked under false pretenses: the US did 9/11, and more and more people inside of NATO and out know this is the truth. This is the first time Article 5 was ever invoked, it is the second time (outside Yugoslavia and Kosovo) NATO has been deployed outside member-states and it is based on a lie by one of the member-states, supposedly the most important member, the US.
The other aspect is about control of the US. If Israel controls the US, and the US controls NATO, then Israel controls NATO. Doubtless some Israeli politicians would like to think this is true. Many US politicians would gallantly submit to Israeli rule and would place the treayt organization at Israel's disposal. The other members see it otherwise.
That leaves a block in NATO of everyone besides the US, and possibly Canada and the UK, at odds with the idea that NATO exists to serve Israel. In other words, all the EU countries, minus, possibly, Britain. So it falls to the EU to deal with thsi violation of the Geneva Convention, the UN Charter and the NATO charter. It's a deal-breaker. It divides NATO, it divides the UN and it could divide an already weakened EU.
Within the EU there is strong sentiment against Turkish membership. Turkey sees its future as inside Europe. There is a Muslim/Christian-Western Secular divide, there is a divide over immigration into the EU and there's a slight possibility of an Islamic divide, although the cards seem to be stacked toward Islamic cooperation against Israel.
Israel could only have made such a provocative move after consultations with the US and others, or if there was knowledge of an impending larger conflict. It's no accident it took place on Veterans' Day in the United States, just as Cast Lead took place around Christmas after CIA agent Obama-Soetoro was allegedly elected but not yet inaugurated. Then as now Obama-Soetoro failed to condemn Israel's gross violation of the norms of Western civilization.