International Politics Thread

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

http://www.hri.org/news/greek/mpab/2004/04-10-12.mpab.html#05

Quote[/b] ]

[05] GREEK AIRSPACE VIOLATIONS BY TURKISH JETS

Athens, 12 October 2004 (17:49 UTC+2)

Turkish fighter jets violated the Greek National Airspace today in the wider region of central Aegean.

According to the National Defense General Staff, 5 formations made up of 12 F16 Turkish Air Force aircraft violated the Greek National Airspace in 14 occasions in the wider region of central Aegean and once over the island of Antipsara at an altitude of 5,000 feet.

The Turkish jets were armed in 4 instances and were all intercepted by Greek aircraft while 4 dogfights took place.

Dogfights?

I knew that Greece and Turkey are at some kind of "Cold War", but they actually dogfight?

Edit: Posted accidentially News from 2002 where Turkish F-16s where in Greece airspace, too.

Interesting, aren't both countries in the NATO? I think these situations are very embarassing for both nations.

How is it embarrassing for us if they keep intruding? Its almost daily occurrence for several decades now. It hardly ever gets reported in foreign media though.

I stress the fact that it is Turkish jets violating our airspace. How exactly does this embarrass us?

[kavoven 4]

Because they can't find a solution to stop the provocation by Turkey

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

Because they can't find a solution to stop the provocation by Turkey

So its our fault that Turkey keeps provoking us and keeps intruding into our airspace

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]So its our fault that Turkey keeps provoking us and keeps intruding into our airspace

I guess he meant that the mangling among those two countries should be stopped. Don´t go so skyrocket Ex-Ronin. I know whenever someone mentiones Greece and Turkey you tend to turn into a tasmanian devil, but k@voven really didn´t take any defense for turkey. Relax man.

And just for the record. Greece isn´t known for it´s ability to come over old issues also.

[DarkLight 0]

Because they can't find a solution to stop the provocation by Turkey

So its our fault that Turkey keeps provoking us and keeps intruding into our airspace          

Gotta love politics!

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

Quote[/b] ]So its our fault that Turkey keeps provoking us and keeps intruding into our airspace

I guess he meant that the mangling among those two countries should be stopped. Don´t go so skyrocket Ex-Ronin. I know whenever someone mentiones Greece and Turkey you tend to turn into a tasmanian devil, but k@voven really didn´t take any defense for turkey. Relax man.  

And just for the record. Greece isn´t known for it´s ability to come over old issues also.

Ah, but Greece's policy in the Aegean has always been to keep the status quo (since WW2/Cyprus anyway - what the US-backed fascist government did is not really relevant here), which means the islands and the land remain distributed the way they are now.

Therefore, you never hear about Greek incursions into Turkish territory.

However, Turkey's repeated agressions (Imia anyone?) clearly show that they are not interested in the status quo. Hence, they are the clear aggressor and thus its their fault.

The only blame we can take is that we are adamant in the fact that we won't let anyone change our borders or otherwise diminish our sovereignty. I don't think anyone can argue with that position...

[iNeo 0]

Pretty interesting, dogfights between an EU member and one soon to be.

By the way, why is Turkey joining the EU when only ~3% of their soil is in Europe?

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

Pretty interesting, dogfights between an EU member and one soon to be.

By the way, why is Turkey joining the EU when only ~3% of their soil is in Europe?

For the same reason that they have been in UEFA for donkey years

Seriously, no idea. Perhaps because 500 years ago they had reached Vienna? Or maybe because they simply want a piece of the pie...

[Balschoiw 0]

...or maybe the EU wants to have an Islamic state in it´s union to weaken religiouse driven acts within the EU.

Turkey is the "last border" to the ME for europe. Maybe that´s why they want to pull them into the boat.

[joltan 0]

Turkey is the "last border" to the ME for europe.

Why for heaven's sake is Israel also allowed to the Grand Prix d'Eurovision then?

[Supah 0]

Turkey is the "last border" to the ME for europe.

Why for heaven's sake is Israel also allowed to the Grand Prix d'Eurovision then?  

Don't tell them but their next inline after turkey

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

Turkey is the "last border" to the ME for europe.

Why for heaven's sake is Israel also allowed to the Grand Prix d'Eurovision then?  

Don't tell them but their next inline after turkey

EU of Borg

[iNeo 0]

Or maybe because they simply want a piece of the pie...

I think so.

[DarkLight 0]

Or maybe because they simply want a piece of the pie...

I think so.

Duuuh!

I mean come oooon, we all love pie, don't we?

[denoir 0]

Turkey is historically more tied to Europe than to Asia. She was for instance a good ally with Sweden in the 17th-18th century, against Russia.

I'm definetly for Turkey joining, but they have a bit more to go to fully meet the criterias set for EU membership. They've done a lot the past years, but still have a bit to go.

On the other hand, you never know how the decision falls in the end. Cyprus should have in its current divided state never been accepted. But some of the stronger member states were strongly for it (UK and Greece) so the EU looked through the fingers for Cyprus. For Turkey, I suspect it is going to be the other way around - far stricter requirements.

The bottom line is still that the natural place for Turkey is with the EU - both from an economic and political point of view.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

There are two reasons why Greece is backing Turkey's entry into the EU, despite the provocations of previous years:

1) Trying to cut a deal for Cyprus (which semi-worked; the Turkish-Cypriot PM managed to piss off Erdogan during the re-unification talks)

2) Removing a huge threat

If Turkey is in the EU, they will not try to take any of our islands or land

[denoir 0]

He's at it again:

EU nominee in single mothers row [bBC]

Quote[/b] ]The Italian minister nominated as EU justice and home affairs commissioner has denied criticising single mothers.

Rocco Buttiglione is already at the centre of a row after being rejected by the European Parliament because of his views on homosexuality and marriage.

On Friday, he was reported as saying single mums were not very good people. Mr Buttiglione, a conservative Catholic, later explained he was using the example of single parents to disprove a political theory.

"The children who have only got a mother and no father are the offspring of a not so good mother," he was reported as saying at a conference in Saint Vincent on Friday.

"And those who have only got a father are not real children, because a man on his own can make a robot but no children."

'Courage'

Mr Buttiglione, who is also Italy's European affairs minister, later said his remark had been taken out of context.

"What I said yesterday was that it would be advisable for Europe and the USA to get on well, and for children to have both a father and a mother," he said.

"All my support goes to [single mothers] for raising their children with courage," he added.

"It is obviously better for children to have a father alongside their mother, but this does not mean one should think less highly of those women who tackle such challenges on their own."

Piero Fassino, the leader of Italy's main opposition party, the Democrats of the Left, later said: "[buttiglione] should adopt the rule that silence is golden, because when he speaks he causes damage for himself and the country."

'Dreadful start'

Commission President-designate Jose Manuel Barroso has defended the nomination of Mr Buttiglione, saying he was confident in his team as a whole.

The justice commissioner oversees the rights of women and gays, and Mr Buttiglione's candidature was rejected by the European Parliament's Civil Liberties Committee on the grounds of his remarks. Mr Buttiglione later said his personal religious and moral beliefs would not influence his political decisions.

Italy's Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi blamed Italian leftists for Monday's vote against Mr Buttiglione, describing it as a "dreadful start" for the new session. The Civil Liberties Committee voted 27 to 26 against the appointment, and 28 to 25 against his re-appointment to another post within the commission.

However, the European Parliament can only endorse or reject the entire 25-strong team when it votes on 27 October. Mr Barroso plans to hold talks with the parliamentary leaders before then, on 21 October.

I am constantly amazed by what idiot politicians Italy is always capable of producing.

Oh ell, it looks at least like this one won't get appointed in the EU. I'm glad the parliament did its job.

[kavoven 4]

Quote[/b] ]So its our fault that Turkey keeps provoking us and keeps intruding into our airspace

I guess he meant that the mangling among those two countries should be stopped. Don´t go so skyrocket Ex-Ronin. I know whenever someone mentiones Greece and Turkey you tend to turn into a tasmanian devil, but k@voven really didn´t take any defense for turkey. Relax man.  

And just for the record. Greece isn´t known for it´s ability to come over old issues also.

Yes, thank you Bals

I regard Greece in many cases as a more developed country(no torture, death penalty, free relogion and so on) and so I think Greece should be more active in this part, just because Turkey is in this relation the "little brother" who's annoying you all the time

[billybob2002 0]

Somebody like to explain this....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news....op.html

Quote[/b] ]

EU judges end human rights law for press

By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in Brussels

(Filed: 18/10/2004)

The European Court has quietly brushed aside 50 years of international case law in a landmark judgment on press freedom, ruling that Brussels does not have to comply with European human rights codes.

In a judgment with profound implications for civil liberties, Euro-judges backed efforts by the European Commission to obtain the computers, address books, telephone records and 1,000 pages of notes seized by Belgian police - on EU instructions - from Hans-Martin Tillack, the former Brussels correspondent of Germany's Stern magazine.

It is a test case of whether the European Court will adhere to the democratic freedoms and liberal principles upheld for the last half-century by Europe's top rights watchdog, the non-EU Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, or whether it will pursue a more authoritarian line as it grows in power.

Mr Tillack had written a series of hard-hitting exposes of EU fraud and skulduggery, relying on inside sources. By obtaining his archive of investigative files amassed over five years, the commission can identify key sources and "burn" a generation of EU whistleblowers.

He was arrested by the Belgian police in March and held incommunicado for 10 hours for allegedly bribing an official to obtain internal EU documents.

The action was requested "urgently" by the EU's anti-fraud office, which claimed Mr Tillack was about leave for America. In fact, he was moving back to Hamburg.

Leaked anti-fraud office documents have since shown that the allegation was concocted over dinner between two commission spokesmen.

Raymond Kendall, the former Interpol chief and now head of anti-fraud office oversight board, testified to the Lords in May that officials had acted improperly "purely on the basis of hearsay" and were "obviously" in collusion with Belgian police to identify Mr Tillack's sources.

Claiming that the anti-fraud office head had more power to launch raids and seize documents than any other police chief in the world, he said the body was a danger to civil liberties. "They can do whatever they want to do. There is absolutely no control whatsoever," he said.

Mr Tillack filed a lawsuit at the European Court with the backing of the International Federation of Journalists to block commission access to his records.

The federation pleaded that the EU's attempt to identify a journalist's sources in that fashion was a "flagrant violation" of press protection established over decades in European Convention law.

If the commission is allowed to sift through his records, it would render investigative journalism "virtually impossible" in Brussels.

Mr Tillack's lawyers cited extensive case law, including the case of "Goodwin v UK" in 1996, ruling that the protection of sources was the cornerstone of a free press and "genuine democracy".

The human rights court ruled against Luxembourg last year that identifying a source of leaks did not constitute a "pressing social need" that could justify a breach of Article 10 on press freedom.

But the EU's Court of First Instance ruled against Mr Tillack last week on the grounds that the case was a strictly Belgian matter.

Euro-judges accepted commission claims that it played no role in the arrest of Mr Tillack, even though leaked anti-fraud office documents show it orchestrated the raid from the beginning.

It is not the first time the European Court has appeared to ignore established human rights law.

It ruled in "Connolly v Commission" in 2001 that the EU could curtail civil rights to defend the "general interest of the communities" where necessary, despite human rights case law clearly and repeatedly banning recourse to such sweeping powers.

In theory, the European Court is obliged to defer to the court of human rights as the higher authority in all areas of rights protection. The Tillack and Connolly rulings offer the first evidence that Euro-judges may create their own very different brand of civil rights law.

[denoir 0]

Explain what? That the Telegraph is a shite tabloid that hates the EU more than anything?

"EU judges end human rights law for press". LMAO. The court has not ruled anything.

They rejected the case and said that they didn't have the jurisdiction of that - that it was a state matter, sending the case to the Belgian supreme court.

And it's quite correct. Freedom of press is not a human rights issue, it's a constitutional issue - and before the EU constitution comes into power, it is the national ones that are in effect. There is no way in hell the court had any authority to make a decision on that.

And of course, the Belgians will in the end conclude that the police violated the reporter's rights. That's why he went to the European Court and not the local one - to get some publicity.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Explain what? That the Telegraph is a shite tabloid that hates the EU more than anything?

"EU judges end human rights law for press". LMAO. The court has not ruled anything.

They rejected the case and said that they didn't have the jurisdiction of that - that it was a state matter, sending the case to the Belgian supreme court.

And it's quite correct. Freedom of press is not a human rights issue, it's a constitutional issue - and before the EU constitution comes into power, it is the national ones that are in effect. There is no way in hell the court had any authority to make a decision on that.

And of course, the Belgians will in the end conclude that the police violated the reporter's rights. That's why he went to the European Court and not the local one - to get some publicity.

Ok. Do not have to get mad...

[denoir 0]

Ok. Do not have to get mad...

It's not directed at you, but elements of the UK media (mostly Rupert Murdoch owned) that don't hesitate to twist and lie to hammer down an anti-EU message. This is just such a typical example.

[Donnervogel 0]

This is a terribly biased and misleading article. The EU court has made no decission in this case. As Denoir explained it's a Blegian issue. Not an EU issue. Therefore the EU court can't act in that matter. However. If the belgian court would, as the article suggests, "ignore human rights" the EU court could act against the state of Belgium for breaking human rights. But that's a different matter.

[xawery 0]

I found this article reprinted on the opinion pages of my newspaper. Quite an interesting read, despite some quirky simplifications. I think especially Denoir might find this article interesting, as its contents coincide with the ideas he has espoused on this forum in the past.

Why Europe Needs — And Wants — Bush to Win

Quote[/b] ]Why Europe Needs — And Wants — Bush to Win

By Richard Phillips | Wednesday, October 13, 2004

The conventional wisdom has it that President Bush’s first term in office has been truly bad for Europe. Whether it is the rift over Iraq or almost any other major policy issue, we are told that they have been to the detriment of Europe. But as Richard Phillips argues, the Bush Administration has not only helped bring Germany and France closer together — it has also unwittingly elevated Europe’s prestige throughout the world.

Based on recent public opinion polls, Europe has identified its enemy — and it is the United States of America under President George W. Bush.

Something in common

Starting with the Kyoto Accords, ending with the Iraq War — and including every single multilateral initiative in between — the United States has been on the wrong side of the popular European discussion.

And today, the single most unifying influence within the European Union is anti-Bushism. In fact, such is the unifying influence of George Bush that he may well go down in history as the father of this thing we call Europe.

It is almost axiomatic that Europeans can’t agree on anything. Put a German and a Frenchman together and you’ll get three, perhaps as many as five, different opinions. But mention the word Bush and it is all smiles, total agreement — and complete solidarity.

This lesson is not lost on the likes of Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schröder. The French and German leaders are tireless missionaries in the cause of a unified Europe. They promote their respective countries’ interests vigorously, as they should. But they also promote the interests of the unified Europe they lead, without hesitation — and often without scruples.

Breaking American hegemony

And at this moment, they recognize that they are winning the biggest geopolitical battle Europe has engaged in since the end of World War II — namely, to break the yoke of American global hegemony.

President George W. Bush is their unwitting accomplice in this endeavor. His staunch unilateralism and macho disregard for Europe’s Catholic sensibilities are like mitzvahs to Europe’s true leaders.

Europe leading

As America under Bush becomes the bęte noire of world politics, Europe moves stealthily to fill the void. Europe provides a warm, earthy and sympathetic shoulder for the world’s disenfranchised to cry on.

And the American president drives friend and foe alike into Europe’s waiting arms. Just look at recent political developments.

In spite of specious claims on the part of the Bush Administration to the contrary, Libya coming clean on its various WMD programs was a European, not an American, success story. It was Europe that tirelessly promoted détente with Colonel Quadafi over the course of the past five years. It was Europe that negotiated the terms of his surrender. It was Europe that got him to disarm.

And it will be Europe that gets the spoils, the first crack at the oil contracts and the first crack at open trade. Europe continues to politely make its inroads in Libya, formally lifting all remaining sanctions on the African nation.

Diplomacy over egoism

In Iran, American sanctions remain in place, even as Iran enjoys an open market with Europe. European diplomats work in subtle — many Americans might say slippery — ways to get the Mullahs to hold back progress on their nuclear ambitions.

Europeans are engaging Iran in a polite give-and-take that is sensitive to Iranian sovereignty and the threats posed to it by its nuclear neighbors, Israel and Pakistan. As a consequence, Iran views Europe as a potential partner in a new world order, even as they reject America as an ‘evil empire.’

Mideast peace process

In Israel and the West Bank, where the United States looks the other way as the Sharon government expands settlements, builds walls and backtracks on its commitment to a Palestinian state, Europe wrings its hands, decrying the injustice of it all.

In the process, Europe is perceived by the world’s population as principled and morally correct. Similar situations exist throughout the world. In Iraq, where foreign satellite television shows a cruel and uncaring occupation, Europe sends it condolences, moderating public opinion toward the EU throughout the Arab world.

A global shoulder to cry on

In dealing with North Korea, where America makes demand upon demand to do it America’s way — and loses ground every step of the way — Europe presents a reticent and ambiguous posture, disassociating itself with a potentially ugly confrontation. After all, North Korea poses no strategic threat to Europe.

In every country on the face of the earth, where public opinion polls show that anti-Americanism is greater now than ever before because of intransigent unilateralism on the part of the Bush Administration, Europe just moves forward, promoting its values and its trade with tireless efficiency.

Promoting interests diplomatically

Spain is expanding its influence throughout Latin America, while Germany promotes its commercial interests in East and Central Asia and France reestablishes its historic prominence as a diplomatic force throughout the Middle East, Africa and much of the rest of world.

All the while, America blusters, fumes and cites a Baptist morality that is often indecipherable outside America’s ‘red’ states — those that predominantly vote for George W. Bush.

There are better ways to handle Europe, to contend effectively with Europe’s inexorable march toward superpower status. Just look at how President Putin handled the Kyoto Accords. Europe required Russian ratification of the Accords for them to go into effect. Like President Bush, President Putin said, “Nyet!†But then he continued to talk and negotiate. Suddenly, President Putin turned around and said “Da!†to Kyoto.

Unwilling to negotiate

Why? Because in the bargain he won European support for Russia’s entry into the World Trade Organization, an important boost to Russia’s economy and status in the world of trade. President Bush could have renegotiated certain terms of the agreement to soften them in America’s interests.

He could have gotten important concessions in areas unrelated to the environment. And in the process, he could have made the whole thing work to the advantage of the global environment and the United States. But I guess in Texas, they don’t think that way.

Global disapproval

George W. Bush is doing America a great disservice. Appealing to ugly jingoistic sentiment coming from the far right, he has created a groundswell of global discontent. And things could get much, much worse for the United States.

It was only several months ago that OPEC, recognizing the weakness of the dollar versus the Euro, made a pass at trying to settle oil in the European currency rather than the greenback, which has been the only settlement currency for oil since the end of the Second World War.

This led the United States to sharply rebuke Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and other oil producing countries. The Bush Administration got its way on this one.

John Kerry in the White House

But the Bush Administration’s weak dollar policy also contributed to a sharp rise in the dollar-denominated price of oil, a rise that was largely offset for Europe by the concurrent strength of the euro. Even in losing, the Europeans had beaten George Bush again on the world stage.

A reasonable and rational United States is a great challenge to Europe. And so too is John Kerry. John Kerry will make it more difficult for Europeans to take advantage of America, to abuse its great principles and to get the better of the United States through trade and finance.

A new course

Mr. Kerry will moderate America’s ugly face and help cast Europe in its true morally ambiguous light. And this will have negative implications for Europe, because through the restoration of American good will and bonhomie, America will fracture Europe’s attempt to put on a unified face.

Unlike President Bush, he will show the world that true leadership incorporates both principle and pragmatism.

But perhaps the greatest danger in a second Bush term is that it will transpose anti-American sentiment, which is currently centered on a Bush Administration widely regarded as an aberration, directly onto the American people.

A Bush victory will be regarded as a popular endorsement of U.S. policy over the past four years. Simply, anti-Bushism will morph into true anti-Americanism — and our adversaries and enemies throughout the world, Europe in particular, will gather strength and become even more emboldened.

Making things worse

Some Americans might suggest that honest participation in the family of nations would be pandering to foreign powers. But in fact, it is merely recognition of realities as they exist around the world in 2004.

George W. Bush may tap into American patriotic sentiment to win U.S. public opinion and create an Alamo stand.

But his approach gives aid and comfort to America’s only adversary for world political leadership, undermines America’s global economic dominance and — at the end of the day — makes life a whole lot tougher for every American.

[kavoven 4]

But perhaps the greatest danger in a second Bush term is that it will transpose anti-American sentiment, which is currently centered on a Bush Administration widely regarded as an aberration, directly onto the American people.

A Bush victory will be regarded as a popular endorsement of U.S. policy over the past four years. Simply, anti-Bushism will morph into true anti-Americanism — and our adversaries and enemies throughout the world, Europe in particular, will gather strength and become even more emboldened.

Very nice article, I think this is the rightest statement in it.