for what, Oil.
Which price, Almost any.

What does the EU seek this influence for and at what price?

“Good lord - this is hardly a novel thought - the country has been the southern NATO ally since 1952!!”

Unfortunately usefullness doesn’t imply compatibility.

“When you consider for example the sham Mubarak runs in Egypt - declaring majorities on the basis of 10% votes cast etc it makes Turkey seem almost principled.”

The question is not addressed by a comparison to Egypt. Do they fit in or not?

“Internal concerns such as military chauvinism and political meddling, human rights problems and of course the Kurdish situation will be addressed most effectively by bringing Turkey closer to Europe.”

So we take them in to solve problems we otherwise would not have to get closely involved with? Getting involved closely with the middle east has often turned out to be a bloody idea, literally.

“Turkey is a vibrant nation in many ways.”

Good for them. Still, it doesn’t make them european.

Doug M is exactly right on this point. Also issues related to the Turkish military reflect on larger geo-political realities in that region, and I think it would be to Europe’s long term advantage to say yes.

Turkey is in many ways the centre piece in the jigsaw that could potentially keep all the other pieces together. It is a potential gateway to greater influence in the Balkans, central Asia and the Middle East. Good lord - this is hardly a novel thought - the country has been the southern NATO ally since 1952!!

This is a fantastic opportunity to demonstrate that democracy and Islam can in fact co-exist. However the negativity, even racism, being voiced in the public debate toward Turkish people is bound to make them feel discouraged about the entire project.

Europe should welcome Turkey with open arms and seek to support the many positives that Turkey offers. When you consider for example the sham Mubarak runs in Egypt - declaring majorities on the basis of 10% votes cast etc it makes Turkey seem almost principled.

Internal concerns such as military chauvinism and political meddling, human rights problems and of course the Kurdish situation will be addressed most effectively by bringing Turkey closer to Europe. You can’t underestimate the power of trans-cultural mediation, especially in this age of high tech communications.

Turkey is a vibrant nation in many ways. On the sports end of it - I have always been impressed by the sheer guts and heart their football players bring to the game. The performance of a country’s national squad says a lot about the character of the people.

I really hope the EU says yes on this.

Besides it isn’t that Islam is incompatible with democracy but that the West doesn’t want democratic Muslim countries. See for example Egypte in the 20’s, Lebanon in the 50’s, Algeria in the 90’s, Iraq in 2004 and Palestina now

Suppose we try that demonstration and fail? Then we are stuck with Turkey in the union. Trying this with eg. Bosnia is much safer.

The EU is not a Christian club. European society is in large part agnostic and atheist, moreover there are millions of Muslims already living in the union. What a great opportunity to provide a bridge between the Middle East and Europe. An opportunity to demonstrate that democracy and Islam can co-exist.

Turkey has a population in excess of 80 million and this will offer opportunities for enterprising European companies. Moreover Turkey would be able to contribute militarily to the EU.

It’s a mistake to view Turkey as a reactionary culture as some are suggesting.
There is a progressive urban culture in Turkey that chafes under the nationalistic hubris that is sometimes is on display - but how is that different from European societies that also include these types of extremes.

If Ankara recognizes Cyprus, it kisses goodbye to any hope of ever using the Turkish Cypriot community in order to lay claim to territorial waters in the Aegean.

This is not a Cypriot issue at all, it’s an internal Turkish problem.

Which obviously is the answer to the question asked in this entry.

Why would you blame them for that? Given the pressure of continous sanctions on the Turkish part their vote hardly shows a great desire for unity. No side wants to live with the other. In principle they are for justice, peace and unity. But so is everybody. They are not willing to implemt it in practice.
If we are unwilling to act according to the facts on the ground we must blame ourselves, not those who make the facts clear.

The Greek Cypriots could easily be induced to accept that – PROVIDING concessions from Ankara are forthcoming on the other issues I mentioned. In any case, I think you’re being disingenuous here about why the Greek Cypriots rejected Annan V.

They did NOT reject the fundamental idea that federal laws should only be approved by separate majorities of the two communities’ deputies.

What the Greek Cypriots didn’t want was to share a dysfunctional non-government ; for instance they wanted a Cypriot Central Bank to be able to set the country’s financial policy; they didn’t want a separate central bank in the north or a machinery of government that could be held hostage to paralysis at any time.

If some municipal bi-zonality is fundamental to the aspirations of the Turkish Cypriots, it might be secured by eliminating those features that made the implementation of property restitution, repatriation of some Anatolian settlers, etc so entirely vulnerable to Ankara’s whim – and most notable of these, the continued military control of the North by Ankara’s army rather than by a neutral force.

Turkey did everything it could to engineer a solution that could easily lead to paralysis, crisis and then Taksim by another name. I find it entirely understandable that the Cypriot Government rejected bi-zonality in this particular context, but there is no reason to assume that the Greek Cypriots would reject it per se if they didn’t perceive it as a diplomatic ploy on Ankara’s part, aimed at engineering an internationally-recognized secession in the medium-term.

As long as it’s Ankara’s agenda rather than that of the Turkish Cypriots that’s on the table, there will be no progress. Greece and Cyprus have genuinely renounced Enosis. Do you truly believe that those who hold a veto over Turkish policy have really renounced the aim of securing a claim to Aegean territorial waters through Taksim ?

The EU cannot dodge the issue indefinitely. Turkey has to understand that this will not be allowed. That’s why Ankara is in such a cleft stick over recognition of Cyprus.