Relations impacts and cp’s
US-Turkey relations good: economy
Download 1.27 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- US-Turkey relations good: EU and Greece
US-Turkey relations good: economyUS-Turkey relations key to market reforms- other countries model Radu 2003 (Michael S., Co-Chairman of FPRI's Center on Terrorism, Counter-Terrorism, and Homeland Security, "Turkey and the U.S.," Dangerous Neighborhood: Contemporary Issues in Turkey's Foreign Relations, The Foreign Policy Research Institute, 2003, p. 197) Economic development is another important issue in Turkish-U.S. relations. Turkey needs U.S. support in securing fresh loans to carry out economic reforms, while the United States needs for Turkey to succeed in its economic development so that it can showcase the country as a model for other states in Central Asia and the Middle East. In this regard, Turkey's move away from import substitution growth to an open market economy has a mixed record of success. On the one hand, Turkey has the sixteenth largest economy in the world, with a dynamic private sector. The Turkish economy also successfully integrated with the world financial markets, and the Istanbul Stock Exchange (ISE) became a star among emerging stock markets. On the other hand, successive Turkish governments, including that of Turgut Ozal, failed to complete the necessary economic reforms required for a stable market economy. They prevented transparency of the economic system, postponed difficult reforms, continued with expansionary monetary policies and, when problems mounted, blamed individuals who were simply doing what they were told to (since the Central Bank was not an independent institution), and took part in corruption on a massive scale. In short, Turkey is far from meeting the Euro criteria (the earlier Economic and Monetary Union requirements of the Copenhagen criteria for economic integration with the EU. Following the financial crisis of February 2001, Turkey's report card has become even worse. US-Turkey relations good: EU and GreeceUS-Turkey relations key to EU-Turkey and Turkey-Greece relations Radu 2003 (Michael S., Co-Chairman of FPRI's Center on Terrorism, Counter-Terrorism, and Homeland Security, "Turkey and the U.S.," Dangerous Neighborhood: Contemporary Issues in Turkey's Foreign Relations, The Foreign Policy Research Institute, 2003, p. 199) From the U.S. perspective, the best scenario is one where Turkey makes good progress all around, achieving a democratic political system with extensive individual civil and political rights, a dynamic market economy, stable and good relations with neighboring countries and EU membership. Achieving these objectives requires substantial help from the United States, particularly with regard to resolving the Cyprus problem and preventing the EU from engaging in any behavior that would distance Turkey from the West. The worst scenario is a Turkey that has failed miserably on the domestic reform fronts, economically bankrupt, saber rattling at Greece and Armenia, distanced from becoming a member of the EU, and suspicious of U.S. intentions in the region. The prospects of achieving good outcomes on the three avenues of development depends on how much the United States is willing to play the role of stabilizer in EU-Turkey and Turkey-Greece relations. The United States needs to champion secular Turkey's image in the region and provide much needed economic assistance to Turkey. Turkish EU accession leads to better US-EU relations Khalilzad, "a strategic plan for western-turkish relations," Chapter 5, June 29, 2000 rand.org Integrating Turkey into the EU should be an important objective of the future strategic cooperation between the United States, Europe, and Turkey. Most Turks are interested in reinforcing ties to the West, and deepening the relationship with the EU. The United States favors Turkey’s eventual full membership in the EU for the following reasons: • Integrating a state that favors strong transatlantic ties into the EU can have a positive effect on how EU-U.S. relations evolve over the long term; • Preparing for and joining the EU will have a positive effect on Turkey’s own evolution as a secular, Western-oriented democracy; • This, in turn, will improve prospects for strategic cooperation of the kind discussed above between Turkey, the United States, and Europe. A Greek/Turkish conflict would explode into an apocalyptic war with multiple scenarios for WMD use Janbek, 1998 [Khairi, Institute for Diplomacy in Amman, Jordan, June 1998, “Heat Wave in Cyprus”] On the Turkish side of the island thirty thousand Turkish troops are unlikely to be deterred by the missiles in the event of conflict. The range of the missiles, however threatens nearby Turkish cities and towns on the mainland, which could lead to total war in the instance of conflict. In an apocalyptic scenario, Greece would most likely get involved, again unsettling peace in the Balkans, and the Mediterranean would become a heavily militarized zone in an age of demilitarization. Obviously, such a situation would have implications for the Arab world. Although relations between Greek-Cyprus and the neighboring Arab states are normal, any perceived threat could put both Lebanese and Syrian ports and cities at the mercy of the Russian missiles. This, in turn, could lead to a new arms race in the region, at a time when resources should be targeted for development, and cooperation among the nations of the region is paramount to solving the fundamental problems of their collective existence. Pushing a policy of brinkmanship at a time when the whole area is nervous it is clearly not a wise thing for the Greek-Cypriot's to do. The stalled Middle East peace process does not need this Meditteranean island to further induce the prevailing pyschology of encirclement. Neither does Turkey-with its conventionally cool relations with all its neighbors- need the emerging tension on the island. Greece, on the other hand, as a member of the EU and NATO, has fully integrated itself into the EU ethos and can only act accordingly. US-EU cooperation empirically key to solving war in Lebanon States News Service 07 [White house 2007 US-EU Summit Political Progress Report, 2007 U.S.-EU SUMMIT POLITICAL PROGRESS REPORT, April 30] The United States and the European Union helped bring an end to the summer 2006 war between Lebanon and Israel, aided in particular by substantial European Union member state contributions to the UNIFIL peacekeeping force in Lebanon. We worked together to provide significant humanitarian assistance to those affected by the conflict, enabling the bulk of the hundreds of thousands displaced to return to their homes and begin to rebuild their lives. We welcomed the $7.6 billion in pledges of international assistance for Lebanon made at the Paris III donors conference in January 2007, including $770 million in loans and grants from the United States and $2.9 billion in loans and grants from the European Union ($535 million from the European Community budget). We called on Syria to end its interference in Lebanon and urged full implementation of UN Security Council resolutions 1680 and 1701. We urged Syria to end destabilising activities and play a more constructive role in Lebanon, Iraq, and the Palestinian territories, as well as to reconsider its relations with Iran; we issued statements calling for the release of Syrian political prisoners. Directory: file -> view view -> Western Europe after wwii view -> Author study: paul fleischman view -> Qpa1 7ela study Guide view -> Arctic Oil/Gas Neg view -> November 1970 Approximately 150,000-500,000 deaths Bhola Cyclone Bangladesh view -> Grade Level: 6 Unit of Study: Caribbean glce view -> Citation: Duffield, Katy view -> Table of Contents Lesson # view -> Chinese Wind Energy Disad Download 1.27 Mb. Share with your friends:
|