I agree... This is just a temporary thing for sure. NATO isn't too happy with the outcome of this, so I presume that something is going to come of that.
Like what? They will give lip service to political freedom, but won't kick out their most important member. Erdogan can carry out a holocaust, and NATO would prefer it over seeing him on team Russia.
I don't think jumping to the conclusion that Erdogan could carry out a holocaust and come out unscathed by NATO is a logical assertion. At some point, another nation will intervene, because Turkey is a fairly major portion of infrastructure in the world. I'm not an expert, or even amazing with politics, so I could be completely wrong, but I accept that. (To each their own opinion, right?)
NATO has been irritated with Erdogan for a long time now. These kinds of military alliances are supposed to promote stability, and it doesn't help when one of your members is provoking potential adversaries, as Turkey did by shooting down a Russian light bomber.
Speaking of travel, he's banned all academics from traveling abroad. Also ont he topic of education, he's ordered the closing of more than 600 schools, the resignation of more than 1,500 university deans, and revoked the licenses of 21,000 teachers.
This is going to end poorly... False flag or not, the coup has given Erdogan an excuse to flush out and exterminate all who oppose him. Anyone want to take bets how long until NATO will revoke Turkey's membership?
Unfortunately, the people of Turkey were going to be screwed no matter how the coup went. If it had succeeded, they would have got a military dictatorship. Now they get a different kind of dictatorship instead. Erdogan was slowly evolving into a dictator before the coup, and now he's accelerating that process.
I wonder if the best outcome for democracy in Turkey would have been a attempted coup which resulted in Erdogan's death before it failed. I don't know of any Turkish politicians who would have been able to build a dictatorship as successfully as Erdogan.
The Turkish military has a long history of executing a coup and then returning control to a new civilian government. While military coups often lead to military dictatorships, that has not been the case in Turkey, and it is in fact one of the established roles of the Turkish military to do so.
> Turkish Armed Forces see themselves as the guardians of the secular and unitary nature of the Republic along with Atatürk's reforms and have intervened by taking over the government three times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Turkey#Influen...
Probably not. My only point was that in Turkey, a coup does not necessarily mean a military dictatorship. Which people apparently disagree with despite the facts and downvote me angrily for saying. This fucking site, man.
Maybe it was just the way you said it. Keep posting facts and maintain a reasonable disposition and I think you'll find that the debates on HN are informative and positive. It certainly beats most of the other sites I can think of.
> If it had succeeded, they would have got a military dictatorship.
That's not a given. Turkey's military has staged quite a few coups over the years and that's really part of their purpose in the Turkish government order. After a few years power usually transitions back to normal democratic elections.
The point is a coup is opposite to that of Democratically elected process. "Part of their purpose" means the democracy is a farce, and there was never a choice of the people.
Many horrible things have been done by democratically-elected governments. In my own country, slavery was actively promoted while we were still one of the world's few "democracies". And as we've seen in more modern times in Iraq and the Balkans, democracy and war-torn ethnically-divided territories do not always work well together.
When I was younger, I thought of democracy as the end-all and be-all of political philosophies, since that the progressive march toward of the perfection of democracy is what was emphasized in school. As an adult, I've come to believe that a nation's true value is in to the extent it promotes the liberty and welfare of all its inhabitants, including minorities.
By this metric, my country, the United States, often viewed as one of the world's "great democracies", is doing relatively poorly.
In places that have a history of subverting democracy by voting in dictatorial leaders all on their own having an institution that is supposed to over throw them strengthens the democracy so long as it's functioning properly and only comes into play at the right times.
It's easy to want a dictator when you're in the majority, they hold the beliefs you do and you're probably going to not be the groups oppressed (at first). Raw complete democracy doesn't have a good way of dealing with a majority wanting to repress a minority. So founders (at least smart ones) put checks in to balance that, in the US it takes the form of the Supreme Court and in Turkey they have the military as a final ultimate check.
I just can't wrap my head around the fact that it can happen like this, wide in the open with everyone watching. Before the coup I was already amazed that I heard news about he taking over a critic newspaper and the next day publishing pro Erdogan propaganda, it's just beyond belief what is happening.
I'd rather live under a liberal, pro-Western, secular military junta, than an illiberal democracy ruled by Islamists who are destroying liberties, hollowing out civil society, and turning the country into a Sunni version of Iran under the Ayatollahs.
Fareed Zakaria has a great book, The Future of Freedom, where he discusses, among other things, the perils of illiberal democracy. The bit that really stuck in my head is his argument that the impartial judge is a more important institution than the ballot box.
Man has lived under undemocratic regimes for almost all of recorded history. It is the human condition. It is more important to defend civilization and order against barbarism and chaos, than it is to ensure that the majority rules. Liberal values and constitutional government preceded true democracy by hundreds of years in the West. Why do we expect otherwise anywhere else?
> I'd rather live under a liberal, pro-Western, secular military junta, than an illiberal democracy ruled by Islamists who are destroying liberties, hollowing out civil society, and turning the country into a Sunni version of Iran under the Ayatollahs.
(1) The Sunni version of Iran under the Ayatollahs is called "Saudi Arabia".
(2) Assuming the attribution of the coup to the Gülen movement is accurate, it would likely not have been a "liberal, pro-Western, secular military junta" but instead an "quasi-liberal, pro-Western, relatively-tolerant-but-still-Islamist military junta".
I think Iran is a better comparison. They keep up the pretense and ceremony of democratic legitimacy, have a sizable and somewhat-tolerated liberal civil society, and rose to power by calling the faithful to the streets.
Saudi Arabia is a tough situation. The House of Saud is the only thing standing between the radical imams and total power.
The future of the Middle East looks very dark right now. Egypt is the only large power where the forces of order and civilization are winning.
I agree with you, but I can't help but feel that this position isn't defensible. Don't they have the democratic right to move to a more religious society if the majority want it?
> If it had succeeded, they would have got a military dictatorship
That's usually not how these things go in Turkey. In 1997, there was a non-violent military coup because of a situation very similar to what we've seen with Erdogan. A few months later, I spent the summer in Istanbul, drinking beer, discussing any and all politics with Turks, and chasing Turkish girls in a decidedly open and free environment. Most Turks I spoke to (admittedly tended to be secular) were quite glad that the coup had taken place and that the Islamist Party (Refah, or "Welfare" Party) was subsequently banned.
Incidentally, at the time the Refah party was banned, Erdogan was an active, up-and-coming party member.
In any case, few of the military coups that have occurred in modern Turkish history have been violent (1980 was significant exception) and none have resulted in a long-term dictatorship (1980 resulted in a 3-year military dictatorship).
Ironically, since 1980, it has been democracy, not military intervention, that has now permitted a dictatorship to gain a foothold in Turkey.
Will the NATO revoke their membership? Turkey is pretty important, to be fair. Revoking their license would definitely cause a lot of trouble, although I can see them doing it if there is no other option.
I do. I think the answer is "never", or "not as a result of this government". When there are internal issues present, military is fragmented and may not act when needed, etc. - that's the time when NATO should be most useful and most needed. Otherwise you get a country which cannot really defend itself and announce to the world - yeah, we don't really care about them anyway.
Speculation - would Ukraine get attacked last year if it was a full NATO member?
>>Speculation - would Ukraine get attacked last year if it was a full NATO member?
It would have already been attacked before that. That's actually why Ukraine was attacked in fact. Putin doesn't want NATO expanding up to Russia's doorstep.
I understand the Russian concern about NATO expansion even if I don't agree with their direct aggression.
while you are correct about Putin not wanting NATO on russia's border it's not why Ukraine was attacked. Not external causes (NATO) but internal issues/ideas/reasons, whatever sick they are
Turkey doesn't want to be on the wrong side of NATO if it's in a territory dispute with Greece, Bulgaria, Cyprus, or even over Armenia although it isn't NATO.
Refugee handling is an EU problem, not really NATO. While there's substantial overlap, the US isn't going to negotiate with that in mind. And there's nothing stopping the EU from continuing to cut a refugee-handling-for-money deal if Turkey exits NATO.
Airbases can still be leased, although it would depend on how badly relations deteriorated.
I think Turkeys biggest fear would be that NATO members stop quietly ignoring Turkey's bombing of PKK bases inside Iraqi Kurdistan and Syria. If Turkey wasn't in NATO, there's nothing stopping the US or others from giving various Kurdish groups weaponry which could threaten Turkey's air superiority (AA missiles, not jets). This would make Turkey's war against the PKK internally a lot more difficult.
So, I do think Turkey will recognize that it will suffer greatly outside NATO, and will take at least basic steps to preserve membership. But we'll see.
This is now about Erdogan, Does Erdogan need NATO more than NATO needs Turkey? That's the question. Dictators tend not to care or stay rational in the "normal" sense of things.
If this coup was planned by Erdogan, then he really has good game and will play a long con on being a member of NATO while doing what he wants.
> there's nothing stopping the US or others from giving various Kurdish groups weaponry which could threaten Turkey's air superiority (AA missiles, not jets).
Well, except Iraq.
That is, there is considerable tension between Iraqi Kurdistan and the central government (the fact that Kurdistan has its own army and the Iraqi army is banned from Kurdistan is one of the irritants on the Iraqi side -- the US arming the Kurds in a way that would make them able to effectively resist Turkey would not be a good thing for the internal stability of Iraq. Or for Iraqi-Kurdistan relations if it happened after Kurdistan broke away completely, like it has shown some interest in doing recently.)
(Actually, reinforcing Iraqi Kurdistan -- and even moreso an ex-Iraqi Kurdistan -- this way would also escalate tensions with Iran, Syria -- and because of the last -- probably also Russia.)
Refugees would not that of a big problem, if only EU states managed it like adults.
As for the rest, Turkey does need NATO
- If it does not want Russia to go frontally against them
- If it wants to keep Cyprus
- If it wants western nations to not help Kurd territories
Leaving NATO would result in territorial losses for Turkey. It would be probably good for the russian sphere of influence, but the Cold War is over, and if Turkey can't be an ally anymore, let's not shoehorn it into the alliance. When will we learn the lessons from Saudi Arabia?
Curiously enough, Turkey is the only member of NATO for whom Article 5 ( automatic response in event of an attack on a member ) had to be explicitly extended:
on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France, on the territory of Turkey or on the islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer
And interestingly that therefore makes it the only member for which there is a clear process for specifically revoking Article 5 protection.
Agreed on this which frightens me more because now it is an actual probability that Turkey will be another country which US thinks "needs to be corrected". Scenario which has been done already on Afgh. & Iraq and the results are all clear.
NATO needs Turkey more than Turkey needs NATO. The country sits literally between Russia and the Middle-East, conveniently also managing Black Sea Fleet access to any other scenario.
I wouldn't bet on Turkey ever leaving or being kicked out.
> Anyone want to take bets how long until NATO will revoke Turkey's membership?
I'll take your bet. It's a trick question because Greece was not expelled from NATO when it was under a military dictatorship, and so I am sure Turkey would not be either.
And there are 50 bombs weighing 320 kg each so less than a B52 loads worth. They can take them here to the UK as far as I'm concerned. It's not like anyones likely to want to actually use any in the foreseeable future.
> Anyone want to take bets how long until NATO will revoke Turkey's membership?
Well, Erdogan's regime is threatening to end its friendship with the US if Gülen isn't turned over, so any termination of the relationship may not come from the NATO side.
That's when we'll know he's really gone off the rails.
I think I read that Kerry had said something like "sure, we'll extradite him...if you have evidence that he committed any crimes." Since any evidence they do have is likely to be pretty weak, this seems like a classic "remember that USA is the boss of you" move. A reasonable Turkish leader wouldn't call that bluff, but Ergodan seems to be slipping deeper and deeper into paranoia and autocratic madness.
this seems like a classic "remember that USA is the boss of you" move
I skimmed the treaty. It does appear that evidence that the person sought has committed a crime is a requirement for an extradition request, in which case Kerry is merely saying "we're not going to exceed our legal authority just because you asked us to". It is also a requirement, at least in most circumstances that the evidence be for a crime that is punishable by detention for more than one year (i.e. a felony) in both countries.
> Since any evidence they do have is likely to be pretty weak, this seems like a classic "remember that USA is the boss of you" move.
I don't follow how you got from A to B there; I don't read Kerry's position as asserting American authority or sovereignty at all, to be honest. It's a standard for extradition which is a sovereignty affair as well as a legal due process consideration in our system of government, but not in the manner of asserting American authority to 'boss' Turkey around.
We refuse the occasional extradition to the UK, for example, despite having a special relationship with them and not tending to diplomatically 'boss' them around, so I'm not following your thinking here. (It's not a great example because of the 2003 treaty we have with them, but the point stands about refusals.)
I'm also not following how you arrived at the American position being a bluff.
I guess one could quibble about the difference between "revoke" and "suspend", but yes, they did at least for WW2.
On December 8, 1941, the FCC issued Order Number 87, which read in part:
"Whereas a state of War exists between the United States and the Imperial Japanese government, and the withdrawal from private use of all amateur frequencies is required for the purpose of National Defense; IT IS ORDERED, that except as may hereafter be specifically authorized by the Commission, no person shall engage in any amateur radio operation...and all frequencies heretofore allocated to amateur radio stations under Part 12 of the Rules and Regulations ARE HEREBY WITHDRAWN. All amateur licensees are hereby notified that the Commission has ordered the immediate suspension of all amateur radio operation in the continental U.S., its territories and possessions."
Interesting. I can't seem the find the official press release for this. RTÜK web site doesn't seem to list anything, quoted TRAC organization web site is the same.
This is relevant for HN as it involves the attempted crackdown on individuals using technology to communicate. Especially when it involves a channel that doesn't go through a government gatekeeper.
Note: users with enough karma (like myself) can click "vouch" on flagged posts. My guess is if enough users do this, that will unkill it (like it did now).
GP only has around 2000 karma, so assuming he's not mistaken about being able to vouch, maybe you haven't been in a situation where vouching was necessary?
What's the point of being a dictator? I sometimes think of really cool stuff one should do and think: "Well you would have to be a dictator to do that.". Maybe I am indoctrinated in Western propaganda but off the top of my had I cannot come up with a cause that is worthwhile enough to pursue if you consider the negative consequences of a dictatorship.
Maybe AI, space stuff or immortality - essentially the same thing. First of all I think these are overrated. The fun thing about these is the thought that "holy fuck we will actually do it!!". When it is there it will be like commercial aviation.
And even if you truly want to accomplish them by all means, the best strategy I can come up with is a) get the best of the best and b) throw all your money at them. If you perform a Gleichschaltung it will definitely harm your ability to throw money. So my dictatorship would consist mostly of cost cutting, economic incentives, educational reforms, reducing administration costs - essentially what every government claims to try anyway.
1) Power feels awesome. You'll use your power to get more power because it feels so good to see those you hate having to bow to you.
2) Educated people are dangerous as they will almost certainly doubt the legitimacy of your rule and more importantly have the ability to plot against you. Hence they must go.
I applaud your thinking, as it is empathic towards your hypothetical subjects :) However people like Erodogan do not think at such a level. Assume a primitive (but not dumb) egocentric world view in dictators. If they had empathy, they wouldn't have been able to fight to get to where they are now.
Power is certainly nice, but I don't need others to know that I am powerful. I find many situations are much more amusing if you do not share them with others but just acknowledge them for yourself. I think there is a purity and elaborateness to it if you don't live of the reactions of others, even if it is just situational humour or in the case of power "knowing that you could". I like it, because if you are not naturally very introverted, it takes some self-discipline.
Exercising and amassing power in contrast seems like a more primitive approach to me. The true upper class does not have to show off. The true stars do not have to fish for attention. The true powerful do not need to be a dictator?
You should watch the TV show Narcos [0], which is about Pablo Escobar and Columbia. He has all the money and power that he could ever need, but still tries to amass more & more. It's intoxicating viewing and provides some insight into the mind of people who feel the need to rule absolutely.
[0] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2707408/
A lot of them seem to steal money / do corrupt things first and then an attraction of being a dictator is you can live your life without going to court / jail. Erdogan wasn't so bad till the "audio recordings in which Erdogan was reportedly heard telling his son, Bilal, to urgently get rid of tens of millions of dollars." thing. Since then he's been a going bit more dictatorial.
Well, if you're naïve enough to think it would work, you COULD re-enact that bit in Cryptonomicon... And by that bit, I mean the bit about the sultanate, and its associated laws, obviously. Even as a dictator, you can't arrange for a networks expert to be in a prison cell adjacent to an immortal alchemist, trying to crack a WWII era code that will lead him to a secret cache of gold. :-D
> if you consider the negative consequences of a dictatorship
Being a dictator generally involves not caring about the negative consequences for anyone else, while assuming that you can effectively mitigate any negative consequences for yourself.
You don't sound like politician material. To put it in perspective Dictatorship for a politician is the equivalent of your startup taking over all your competitors and achieving monopoly. It just feels good - its absolute power for a minute or two until you start facing the consequences.
Power is addictive and its human nature. Think of a dictator as a junkie looking for a better high.
What tends to happen in dictatorships is that actions started by the dictator are seen as their ruling, not as the best course of action given the evidence (even when they provide the evidence, it's assumed to be doctored).
The other part of it is that the dictator is presented with an image that has little to do with reality. Take a look at any large corporation where there's a lot of distance between the CEO and the base. If a branch knows that there'll be a visit from the CEO to their location, a massive effort is made to make it look like everything is wonderful (fresh paint, clean desks, etc.). Dictators make decisions based on what's presented, not what's actually happening. (Reminds me so much of the Paranoia RPG.)
> So my dictatorship would consist mostly of cost cutting, economic incentives, educational reforms, reducing administration costs - essentially what every government claims to try anyway.
I recommend you hire a food taster. In fact get a dozen, they're cheaper that way.
Wanton flagging like that is a good reason to have your flagging privileges taken away by the mods.
Besides, you're Turkish. If you don't want the world's attention to be drawn to the joke that Turkey has become (I say this as a Turk), then your flagging is probably politically motivated.
There's potentially an interesting discussion to be had here about the technical and political effects of ham radio during disruptions in "official" centralized communications systems, e.g. during a coup or counter-coup crackdown. But of course we're just getting a "Turkey politics 101" thread instead.
That's exactly why I've been flagging. The discussions are almost identical with some conspiracy theories, how Turkey is going backwards and how much Erdogan sucks. This is just r/WorldNews level stuff right there.
Amateur radio operators are organized. They are an international auxiliary communication system. They are an information channel that is largely outside the control of governments. They are a human network.
I simply can't imagine what relevance that would have to the HN crowd.
Depends on how long you're transmitting for. If you're transmitting to repeaters (which take in a signal on one frequency and rebroadcast on another), the time required to find you will go up.
There used to be a remote FCC receive site near me. Looked like a fake pine tree. Only new about it because of a local broadcast engineer told me where it was.
Hide? Not really. Triangulation is very trivial with the right equipment. All you need is two directional receivers that are separated a bit. Rotate each one until you get the strongest signal from the broadcaster you're looking for. Now draw two lines on the map based on those two directions and you've got your probable point of origin.
You could do something like relay your signal - but your relay will be found. You could be on the move, but every time you broadcast you give away your location.
I'm not sure about Turkey, but in the USA if you're a Ham, you had to supply your address to the FCC. So if the same is true in Turkey and the ham didn't lie... well they already know who you are and where you live.
Cell phones used to bypass the official international connections are popular in countries with stupid regulation. One guy in Honduras used to run a phone bank (IP->Honduras) out of a van. He'd drive around to avoid being triangulated. When you make 5+ cents a minute per 20kbps stream, all sorts of stuff becomes interesting.
Near Vertical Incident Skywave (NVIS) HF transmissions are very difficult (likely impossible) to track from the ground. They go almost straight up. Hams call them cloud burners. However, they are limited to 200 - 400 mile radius.
You'd need a dipole (14 AWG wire) about 5 meters above the ground or an 80 meter loop about 10 meters up. If setup right, the antenna would be difficult to detect as well.
Edit: I'm a Ham. I build wire antennas as a hobby. It's fun.
Earth-Moon-Earth or exotic digital modes are also a possibility. EME is impossible to triangulate if you're using a suitably directional antenna. A creative interpretation of the Shannon-Hartley theorem allows for communication below the noise floor using low symbol rates and wide bandwidth. LF and below is difficult to triangulate because of the huge wavelengths, but a workable antenna would be rather conspicuous. You might also get lucky with meteor scatter or sporadic E.
Not a HAM - but are their broadcasting devices that would fit in a car/motorcycle/bicycle that could be timed to switch between broadcasts on different devices in a random order for x amount of time (i.e. Radio A sends for 30 seconds, fades out as Radio B fades in with same message from a different, moving location)?
And to think that Turkey was considered for EU membership - That's definitely off the table now. It's a testament as to how quickly Turkey has declined.
Even without EU membership, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of Turkish people will try to relocate to Europe and elsewhere. This would be a massive brain and capital drain for Turkey - Especially given that this is a country which was considered safe and progressive not so long ago...
That may be bad for both Turkey and the countries they flee to. Turkey was/is a democracy. The people of Turkey created the current political environment. If they go elsewhere, they will be influencing politics beyond Turkey, maybe in similar ways.
There is a distinct separation between the people who made the country as it is now and the people who couldn't prevent them. As for your concern; the lacking prevention of the now felt almost-dictatorship is a strong evidence of the lack of politics involvement of the group which is against this kind of Turkey now.
So your concern is right, if the people who made this country this way gets to flee; it's not if the people who couldn't stop this country be this way gets to flee.
The U.S. still doesn't even recognize it officially as being genocide, so, no, it's probably not time yet.
We're pretty much deaf, dumb and blind when it comes to genocide. We generally allow governments to kill their own people, and often other people, as long as they're brown. When they're white, we draw the line at them killing other people. Sometimes.
With the hobby already on it's last legs it's sad to see even 1 person loose their license. That's even without taking in consideration the political and social ramifications of these actions.
With an extra exam and a bit of time learning CW I can get news directly from people who live in countries around the world. Now that just isn't possible in some countries.
Looks like the article has been updated to indicate that this is false information (see the red text at the bottom):
"We’re happy to confirm that this news has been disproved we apologise for the false information given but apparently local hams from Istanbul city were interdicted from transmitting until yesterday"
139 comments
[ 2.4 ms ] story [ 99.0 ms ] threadThere's a whole lot of existing countries between Turkey (even Turkey today) and North Korea.
http://nyti.ms/29SUzis
http://nyti.ms/29VJihy
I wonder if the best outcome for democracy in Turkey would have been a attempted coup which resulted in Erdogan's death before it failed. I don't know of any Turkish politicians who would have been able to build a dictatorship as successfully as Erdogan.
> Turkish Armed Forces see themselves as the guardians of the secular and unitary nature of the Republic along with Atatürk's reforms and have intervened by taking over the government three times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Turkey#Influen...
That's not a given. Turkey's military has staged quite a few coups over the years and that's really part of their purpose in the Turkish government order. After a few years power usually transitions back to normal democratic elections.
It's the standard problem of having a democracy that votes to end democracy. In America, we get Trump, which is debatably similar...
When I was younger, I thought of democracy as the end-all and be-all of political philosophies, since that the progressive march toward of the perfection of democracy is what was emphasized in school. As an adult, I've come to believe that a nation's true value is in to the extent it promotes the liberty and welfare of all its inhabitants, including minorities.
By this metric, my country, the United States, often viewed as one of the world's "great democracies", is doing relatively poorly.
It's easy to want a dictator when you're in the majority, they hold the beliefs you do and you're probably going to not be the groups oppressed (at first). Raw complete democracy doesn't have a good way of dealing with a majority wanting to repress a minority. So founders (at least smart ones) put checks in to balance that, in the US it takes the form of the Supreme Court and in Turkey they have the military as a final ultimate check.
edit: Source for my original post (can't edit now) of the history of Turkish coups: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2012/04/201244728146879...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-04/turkish-g...
Who knows how this is gonna end? Pass the popcorn...
Fareed Zakaria has a great book, The Future of Freedom, where he discusses, among other things, the perils of illiberal democracy. The bit that really stuck in my head is his argument that the impartial judge is a more important institution than the ballot box.
Man has lived under undemocratic regimes for almost all of recorded history. It is the human condition. It is more important to defend civilization and order against barbarism and chaos, than it is to ensure that the majority rules. Liberal values and constitutional government preceded true democracy by hundreds of years in the West. Why do we expect otherwise anywhere else?
(1) The Sunni version of Iran under the Ayatollahs is called "Saudi Arabia".
(2) Assuming the attribution of the coup to the Gülen movement is accurate, it would likely not have been a "liberal, pro-Western, secular military junta" but instead an "quasi-liberal, pro-Western, relatively-tolerant-but-still-Islamist military junta".
Saudi Arabia is a tough situation. The House of Saud is the only thing standing between the radical imams and total power.
The future of the Middle East looks very dark right now. Egypt is the only large power where the forces of order and civilization are winning.
No.
Also the lion's share of economic and scientific advancement.
For some reason democracy is being treated as the all encompassing headline act and receives applause tenuously related to its performance.
That's usually not how these things go in Turkey. In 1997, there was a non-violent military coup because of a situation very similar to what we've seen with Erdogan. A few months later, I spent the summer in Istanbul, drinking beer, discussing any and all politics with Turks, and chasing Turkish girls in a decidedly open and free environment. Most Turks I spoke to (admittedly tended to be secular) were quite glad that the coup had taken place and that the Islamist Party (Refah, or "Welfare" Party) was subsequently banned.
Incidentally, at the time the Refah party was banned, Erdogan was an active, up-and-coming party member.
In any case, few of the military coups that have occurred in modern Turkish history have been violent (1980 was significant exception) and none have resulted in a long-term dictatorship (1980 resulted in a 3-year military dictatorship).
Ironically, since 1980, it has been democracy, not military intervention, that has now permitted a dictatorship to gain a foothold in Turkey.
Speculation - would Ukraine get attacked last year if it was a full NATO member?
It would have already been attacked before that. That's actually why Ukraine was attacked in fact. Putin doesn't want NATO expanding up to Russia's doorstep.
I understand the Russian concern about NATO expansion even if I don't agree with their direct aggression.
-refugees, refugees, refugees
-2nd biggest military in NATO
-Incirlik Airbase
-Access and control to Syria
-Radar and other intel gathering equipment looking over Russia's belly and Middle East
-blocking Russian access to the Med
-human intelligence
Refugee handling is an EU problem, not really NATO. While there's substantial overlap, the US isn't going to negotiate with that in mind. And there's nothing stopping the EU from continuing to cut a refugee-handling-for-money deal if Turkey exits NATO.
Airbases can still be leased, although it would depend on how badly relations deteriorated.
I think Turkeys biggest fear would be that NATO members stop quietly ignoring Turkey's bombing of PKK bases inside Iraqi Kurdistan and Syria. If Turkey wasn't in NATO, there's nothing stopping the US or others from giving various Kurdish groups weaponry which could threaten Turkey's air superiority (AA missiles, not jets). This would make Turkey's war against the PKK internally a lot more difficult.
So, I do think Turkey will recognize that it will suffer greatly outside NATO, and will take at least basic steps to preserve membership. But we'll see.
This is now about Erdogan, Does Erdogan need NATO more than NATO needs Turkey? That's the question. Dictators tend not to care or stay rational in the "normal" sense of things.
If this coup was planned by Erdogan, then he really has good game and will play a long con on being a member of NATO while doing what he wants.
Well, except Iraq.
That is, there is considerable tension between Iraqi Kurdistan and the central government (the fact that Kurdistan has its own army and the Iraqi army is banned from Kurdistan is one of the irritants on the Iraqi side -- the US arming the Kurds in a way that would make them able to effectively resist Turkey would not be a good thing for the internal stability of Iraq. Or for Iraqi-Kurdistan relations if it happened after Kurdistan broke away completely, like it has shown some interest in doing recently.)
(Actually, reinforcing Iraqi Kurdistan -- and even moreso an ex-Iraqi Kurdistan -- this way would also escalate tensions with Iran, Syria -- and because of the last -- probably also Russia.)
As for the rest, Turkey does need NATO
- If it does not want Russia to go frontally against them
- If it wants to keep Cyprus
- If it wants western nations to not help Kurd territories
Leaving NATO would result in territorial losses for Turkey. It would be probably good for the russian sphere of influence, but the Cold War is over, and if Turkey can't be an ally anymore, let's not shoehorn it into the alliance. When will we learn the lessons from Saudi Arabia?
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_17245.htm
on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France, on the territory of Turkey or on the islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer
And interestingly that therefore makes it the only member for which there is a clear process for specifically revoking Article 5 protection.
I wouldn't bet on Turkey ever leaving or being kicked out.
I'll take your bet. It's a trick question because Greece was not expelled from NATO when it was under a military dictatorship, and so I am sure Turkey would not be either.
The US needs Turkey for the war in Syria. And the US is not about to move all those nukes elsewhere.
I believe they're all gravity bombs, which makes them mostly symbolic, just like the nukes we store in other NATO countries.
Well, Erdogan's regime is threatening to end its friendship with the US if Gülen isn't turned over, so any termination of the relationship may not come from the NATO side.
I think I read that Kerry had said something like "sure, we'll extradite him...if you have evidence that he committed any crimes." Since any evidence they do have is likely to be pretty weak, this seems like a classic "remember that USA is the boss of you" move. A reasonable Turkish leader wouldn't call that bluff, but Ergodan seems to be slipping deeper and deeper into paranoia and autocratic madness.
I skimmed the treaty. It does appear that evidence that the person sought has committed a crime is a requirement for an extradition request, in which case Kerry is merely saying "we're not going to exceed our legal authority just because you asked us to". It is also a requirement, at least in most circumstances that the evidence be for a crime that is punishable by detention for more than one year (i.e. a felony) in both countries.
I don't follow how you got from A to B there; I don't read Kerry's position as asserting American authority or sovereignty at all, to be honest. It's a standard for extradition which is a sovereignty affair as well as a legal due process consideration in our system of government, but not in the manner of asserting American authority to 'boss' Turkey around.
We refuse the occasional extradition to the UK, for example, despite having a special relationship with them and not tending to diplomatically 'boss' them around, so I'm not following your thinking here. (It's not a great example because of the 2003 treaty we have with them, but the point stands about refusals.)
I'm also not following how you arrived at the American position being a bluff.
FWIW the US did the same during WW1 and WW2 albeit under different circumstances.
On December 8, 1941, the FCC issued Order Number 87, which read in part:
"Whereas a state of War exists between the United States and the Imperial Japanese government, and the withdrawal from private use of all amateur frequencies is required for the purpose of National Defense; IT IS ORDERED, that except as may hereafter be specifically authorized by the Commission, no person shall engage in any amateur radio operation...and all frequencies heretofore allocated to amateur radio stations under Part 12 of the Rules and Regulations ARE HEREBY WITHDRAWN. All amateur licensees are hereby notified that the Commission has ordered the immediate suspension of all amateur radio operation in the continental U.S., its territories and possessions."
http://www.vpnavy01.com/websites/ke3w/history.html#24
Am I missing something?
Maybe AI, space stuff or immortality - essentially the same thing. First of all I think these are overrated. The fun thing about these is the thought that "holy fuck we will actually do it!!". When it is there it will be like commercial aviation.
And even if you truly want to accomplish them by all means, the best strategy I can come up with is a) get the best of the best and b) throw all your money at them. If you perform a Gleichschaltung it will definitely harm your ability to throw money. So my dictatorship would consist mostly of cost cutting, economic incentives, educational reforms, reducing administration costs - essentially what every government claims to try anyway.
2) Educated people are dangerous as they will almost certainly doubt the legitimacy of your rule and more importantly have the ability to plot against you. Hence they must go.
I applaud your thinking, as it is empathic towards your hypothetical subjects :) However people like Erodogan do not think at such a level. Assume a primitive (but not dumb) egocentric world view in dictators. If they had empathy, they wouldn't have been able to fight to get to where they are now.
Exercising and amassing power in contrast seems like a more primitive approach to me. The true upper class does not have to show off. The true stars do not have to fish for attention. The true powerful do not need to be a dictator?
A lot of them seem to steal money / do corrupt things first and then an attraction of being a dictator is you can live your life without going to court / jail. Erdogan wasn't so bad till the "audio recordings in which Erdogan was reportedly heard telling his son, Bilal, to urgently get rid of tens of millions of dollars." thing. Since then he's been a going bit more dictatorial.
Being able to do anything you want.
> if you consider the negative consequences of a dictatorship
Being a dictator generally involves not caring about the negative consequences for anyone else, while assuming that you can effectively mitigate any negative consequences for yourself.
Power is addictive and its human nature. Think of a dictator as a junkie looking for a better high.
The other part of it is that the dictator is presented with an image that has little to do with reality. Take a look at any large corporation where there's a lot of distance between the CEO and the base. If a branch knows that there'll be a visit from the CEO to their location, a massive effort is made to make it look like everything is wonderful (fresh paint, clean desks, etc.). Dictators make decisions based on what's presented, not what's actually happening. (Reminds me so much of the Paranoia RPG.)
I recommend you hire a food taster. In fact get a dozen, they're cheaper that way.
Besides, you're Turkish. If you don't want the world's attention to be drawn to the joke that Turkey has become (I say this as a Turk), then your flagging is probably politically motivated.
I simply can't imagine what relevance that would have to the HN crowd.
Are there mechanisms that an enforcement authority can use to find your physical location?
Is it possible to ostensibly rebroadcast a government-approved channel, but with additional stenography or mixing to embed information?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIGAOLJh-XE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amateur_radio_repeater
Yes, it's unimaginatively called "direction finding". Hams often do it as a sport, and sometimes to locate unlicensed operators causing interference.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amateur_radio_direction_findin...
> Is it possible to ostensibly rebroadcast a government-approved channel, but with additional stenography or mixing to embed information?
Absolutely possible, though international amateur radio regulations prevent the concealing of information in a transmission.
You could do something like relay your signal - but your relay will be found. You could be on the move, but every time you broadcast you give away your location.
I'm not sure about Turkey, but in the USA if you're a Ham, you had to supply your address to the FCC. So if the same is true in Turkey and the ham didn't lie... well they already know who you are and where you live.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_vertical_incidence_skywav...
You'd need a dipole (14 AWG wire) about 5 meters above the ground or an 80 meter loop about 10 meters up. If setup right, the antenna would be difficult to detect as well.
Edit: I'm a Ham. I build wire antennas as a hobby. It's fun.
Even without EU membership, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of Turkish people will try to relocate to Europe and elsewhere. This would be a massive brain and capital drain for Turkey - Especially given that this is a country which was considered safe and progressive not so long ago...
So your concern is right, if the people who made this country this way gets to flee; it's not if the people who couldn't stop this country be this way gets to flee.
We're pretty much deaf, dumb and blind when it comes to genocide. We generally allow governments to kill their own people, and often other people, as long as they're brown. When they're white, we draw the line at them killing other people. Sometimes.
https://clg.portalxm.com/library/keytext.cfm?keytext_id=52
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ghosts/themes/...
https://www.ushmm.org/confront-genocide/speakers-and-events/...
http://www.internationaljusticeproject.com/american-response...
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2001/09/bystande...
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestoryamericas/2012...
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/27/opinion/congo-war-ignored-vava...
With an extra exam and a bit of time learning CW I can get news directly from people who live in countries around the world. Now that just isn't possible in some countries.
"We’re happy to confirm that this news has been disproved we apologise for the false information given but apparently local hams from Istanbul city were interdicted from transmitting until yesterday"