Thursday, August 11, 2016

Turkey, Europe's Little Problem

Gatestone Institute
Facebook  Twitter  RSS
Donate

In this mailing:

Turkey, Europe's Little Problem

by Burak Bekdil  •  August 11, 2016 at 5:00 am
  • Europe is giving signals, albeit slowly, that it may be waking up from the "Turkey-the-bridge" dream. Germany's Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmaier said that his country's relations with Turkey have grown so bad the two countries have virtually "no basis" for talks.
  • "Italy should be attending to the mafia, not my son," said Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Typically, he does not understand the existence of independent judiciary in a European country. He thinks, as in an Arab sheikdom, prosecutors are liable to drop charges on orders from the prime minister.
  • "We know that the democratic standards are clearly not sufficient to justify [Turkey's] accession [to the European Union]." — Austrian Chancellor Christian Kern.
Germany's Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmaier (right) said that his country's relations with Turkey under Recep Tayyip Erdogan have grown so bad the two countries have virtually "no basis" for talks.
Nations do not have the luxury, as people often do, of choosing their neighbors. Turkey, under the 14-year rule of Recep Tayyip Erdogan's Islamist governments, and neighboring both Europe and the Middle East, was once praised as a "bridge" between Western and Islamic civilizations. Its accession into the European Union (EU) was encouraged by most EU and American leaders. Nearly three decades after its official bid to join the European club, Turkey is not yet European but has become one of Europe's problems.
Europe's "Turkish problem" is not only about the fact that in a fortnight a bomb attack wrecked a terminal of the country's biggest airport and a coup attempt killed nearly 250 people; nor is it about who rules the country. It is about the undeniable democratic deficit both in governance and popular culture.

Is Israel about to Sign a Terrible Deal?

by Shoshana Bryen  •  August 11, 2016 at 4:00 am
  • 100% of the money will be spent in the U.S., while Israel is presently able to spend 25% in Israel. This is a subsidy for U.S. defense industries and constrains Israel's defense choices by forcing the IDF to exclude weapons from Europe and elsewhere.
  • Without the ability to spend some money in Israel, it will be harder for smaller defense and high-tech industries to keep up.
  • Israel will be prohibited from asking Congress for additional funds for ten years, effectively removing a bipartisan center of support for Israel's security from the equation and reducing Israel's flexibility in addressing rapidly emerging threats.
  • This could be particularly problematic: an administration that opposes missile defense in principle -- as does the Obama administration -- could effectively stifle Israel, which protects its people with a layered missile defense system.
It is hard to get the nuance right in a security arrangement between a superpower and a small country, even if the small country is a first-world democracy in terms of education, income, technology, and political structure. Above, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu meets President Barack Obama at the White House, May 20, 2011. (Image source: Israel PM office)
A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is an agreement between two parties -- in this case, the governments of Israel and the United States. It is less than a treaty, more than a handshake. The first MOU was signed in 1981, recognizing "the common bonds of friendship between the United States and Israel and builds on the mutual security relationship that exists between the two nations." The current MOU, signed in 2007, represented a 10-year commitment. The Obama Administration and the government of Israel have been negotiating a new 10-year agreement that will come into effect in 2017.

To subscribe to the this mailing list, go to https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/list_subscribe.php
14 East 60 St., Suite 1001, New York, NY 10022

No comments:

Post a Comment