Should Turkey Become the Eu Member

Since 1950 European Union (EU) was created it has promoted peace, prosperity and values among the member nations and its neighbouring countries. EU’s influential tools, has helped transform many European states into functioning democracies and prosperous countries. EU’s membership has grown from 6 to 28 countries (Enlargement, 2014), satisfying a historic vow to integrate the continent bringing in most states of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) by peaceful ideals.EU has anticipated the enlargement as an extraordinary opportunity to endorse political strength and economic success in Europe. EU’s extension policy is open to any European state that fulfils the EU’s political and financial criteria for membership; still the political process of inclusion of new state requires a unanimous agreement from all the existing 28 member states. Europe is considered to be more flourishing and safer place due to the promotion of democracy, anti-corruption policy and the single market policy.

This essay will be focused on the problem, related with ethnic groups and their persistence in times of contemporary Europe. What are ethnic groups? Main features and concept of them. How did they appear? Which positions and power do they hold in nowadays world? Exclusivism vs. Inclusivism. What means these terms? Which approach from these two have different ethnic groups? What is the European Union policy towards them? On these and some other questions I will try to find answers in the text below.

Armenia became the first nation to accept Christianity as their religion. An era of great accomplishments followed; a distinct alphabet, the flourishing of literature and art, and a unique style of architecture. In the eleventh century a Turkish invasion happened in the Armenian homeland (“United Human Rights Council”). The Ottoman Empire came to power in the thirteenth century, but became one of the most powerful states in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries and by this time, Armenia has been caught up in it (Yapp). In the eighteen hundreds the Ottoman Empire was in a serious decline. Greeks, Serbs and Romanians had achieved their independence, while the Armenians and Arabs remained stuck in the bankrupt empire, that was now under the rule of the autocratic Sultan Abdul Hamid II (“United Human Rights Council”). Armenians were not treated equally and had to deal with certain type of treatments and hardships (“Armenian Genocide”). Armenians began to press for political forms for the right to vote and to end the discriminatory practices such as the special taxes made especially for them because they were Christians (“United Human Rights Council”). The Sultan responded with merciless persecutions and

What has lead Turkey to dramatically shift its policy? How big of a role has the sense of identity play in this matter? This paper will argue that although the population of Turkey is predominantly Muslim, it also represents a secular state with western style democracy. It plays a critical geopolitical role since it is in the center of Europe and the Middle East. It is also the revival of an identity the Islamist feared had been overshadowed by the West and the Western culture. Therefore, in today’s globalized world, Turkey plays a vital role in complying both Islamic and western ideals to appeal to both of the civilizations.

The Turkish people of the Ottoman Empire were followers of Islam, whereas the Armenian people’s domination was of the Christian belief, even though they resided in the Ottoman Empire. Due to this obvious divide, prejudice had begun to sprout. Armenians had to pay discriminatory taxes and were denied participation in government.

During the 15th century Armenia was included into the Ottoman Empire. Armenians have a Christianity background, and despite becoming part of a muslim based community they managed to continue practicing their beliefs. However, the Ottoman rulers put shame on those who followed Christianity by treating them unjustly and labeling them as the inferior part of their society. Even though Armenians had many restrictions, they still managed to become successful and in some cases they were more educated and wealthy than the Turks. Their success tipped the Turkish over to a dark and jealous place, adding the fact that they were not Muslim this situation was bound to get worse sooner or later. More than anything, Ottoman rulers believed in loyalty towards their empire above all, and they did not feel it from the Armenians.

In addition to the issue of national security, another factor that accounts for the controversy on the refugee crisis is the perplexing relationship between economic stability and the basic standards of humanity. Many Europeans are living under precarious conditions and thus, they lack the time and money to spare. Consequently, many Europeans think of Muslim migrants less as refugees but as “competitors with similar levels of prospects” (“Eastern Europe's Crisis of Compassion”). The concern over economic instability is also plays a role in the Turkish accession to the European Union (EU). Many Europeans are anxious about Turks immigrating to Europe in search of jobs when the unemployment rate in Europe is already so high. Moreover, Europeans

The Armenian Genocide was the systematic destruction of the Armenian population as part of a deliberate policy of the Ottoman regime in 1915. Governing the Ottoman Empire between 1908 and 1918, the Young Turks or more specifically, the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) conceived the deportations and eventual genocide of the Armenian peoples as a necessary condition in the establishment of a Turkish state. This was ultimately reinforced by an Islamic ideological construct that envisaged the removal of “internal enemies” or infidels from the social body, that coincided with the Young Turk notion of ‘destruction as self-construction’. The theocratic nature of the empire saw the collective religious and cultural devaluation of the Christian minority that was further instilled by the notions of Pan-Turkism that had sought to achieve a homogenous Turkish state.

What still needs to be taken accounted for is if this compromise can last. The truth is, bi-national states have not been known to succeed. The dominant party sometimes either tries to dominate over all laws and actions, or the smaller group secedes from the state entirely. To determine the likelihood of success for a federation, examining the statistics of the Turkish population is the best option3. There are only two ethnic groups in Turkey; the Turks and the Kurds. Any other ethnic groups based on race that might exist are probably so small that they would not make an impact. The population of Turkey is roughly seventy five million, with sixteen to seventeen million being Kurdish. Using the formulas for measuring fragmentation and polarization, the rate of fragmentation is around 0.62, with the polarization rate roughly around 0.81. The scale is like this: 0 meaning no fragmentation or no polarization, and 1 meaning impossibly diverse or improbably equal representation. A fair amount of fragmentation, but a high percentage of polarization. The ratio of Turks to Kurds is approximately 73-27, but because there are no other cultural minorities competing for equal representation, the Kurdish receives a lot of attention from the

Aware that he would not single-handedly change the field of Ottoman studies with this thesis, Roderic Davison does, however, succeed in influencing the trends of research and scholarship in the field. His article, “Turkish Attitudes Concerning Christian-Muslim Equality in the Nineteenth Century,” attempts to add new research to help resolve several main controversies. Disputing previous beliefs of the field, he gives evidence to try to answer the “three questions” he extends towards his audience. Primarily Davison seeks to discover what made the Ottoman Tanzimat period of reform fail. This study necessitates an examination of the attitudes of the Turkish reformers, the

In this essay Turkey is the main subject and the people, customs and courtesies, lifestyle, and society. Also you will learn that Turkey can be a lot different than the U.S. from the way they greet people to how their government works.

These pluralist policies involved a diversified internal ethical system of governing, which did not strictly adhere to the Muslim and non-Muslim edicts of the Millet system. Indeed, there was a great deal of flexibility in the delegation of legal rights and the power related to class status and social mobility that came along with access to the Ottoman courts by Christian and Jews. Certainly, the Ottoman Empire had a powerful aristocracy, but the traditional policies of tolerance towards Christians, Jews, and other minorities defined a new era of social mobility that allowed men of merit to assimilate into Ottoman governmental institutions. These are extremely important aspects of the development of a broader range of constructivist views of Ottoman administration, which provide the means adapting and assimilating differing people from non-Muslim groups into Islamic society. The majority of government office holders in the ottoman government were Muslim, yet the importance an internalized loyalty to the edicts of Muhammad and the Koran remained in tact in regards to tolerating and adapting to differing religious groups in the empire.

The word culture has been commonly used in the current society. However, it is worth noting its true definition. Biagetti & Lugli (2014) asserts that if one made an inquiry of its meaning from anthropologists whose sole responsibility is studying culture, then it is common knowledge that he would receive a variety of answers from them. Despite the different definitions, most of them put emphasis on same aspects. For this discussion, therefore, the definition of culture will be given. Also, the article will provide its five primary characteristics, and the overview of the physical geography, military conflict and its impact on Turkish society.

Turkey has the advantage of being a secular country; this in a sense makes them very neutral. Without the problems you see in other surrounding countries with extremely corrupt governments, trade can be as painless as possible. With the Turkish Government establishing good trade relations with other countries only the market culture is to be considered. For example, the difference between Germany and the UK. Germany has a need for Arceliks products to be of higher quality and thus of a certain value, once the price drops to much it will not be bought. It was noted that a reputation in Germany would need to be established in order to thrive. In the UK the strategy was different and prices were lower due to the fact that the culture demands things at lower prices regardless of reputation etc. These two differences can be attested to cultural implications from each country. Germany being a more developed country with more wealth, has a higher standard of living and therefore have the luxury of choosing only the best products for new homes. These types of markets will be harder to break into, due to an un established reputation.

If we look deeply at the government structure, we can see that historically, Turkey lacks government openness. With the birth of the Turkish republic in 1923, the Turkish government did not satisfy the demands of the Kurds who were seeking independence. And since it is more of an authoritarian and closed system, the public opinion did no have any impact on the government.