There are two “coalition armies” trying to be established and formed of soldiers from many countries in the Northern hemisphere. One of them is the European army, and the other is the Arabian Army. Even though they are far from each other, the threats they face and their opportunities and capabilities are different, and they have the U.S. as an “ally”. Can the “eccentric” thesis, that both of these armies, who seem to be established with resentment against the U.S., have “the same mind” in their basis, be proven?...
The President of the EU Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker's demand for a united European army was argued deeply. His reason was this; “The establishment of this army will be giving a 'more' stronger response to the threats directed towards the peace of the 'member or neighboring' countries”… That threat is Russia.
It's a complicated matter; what's NATO? While there is NATO, what's the use for the European army?
There are two ambivalent theses… 1. The strong theory is; some countries - especially Germany and France, who are aware of the U.S.'s trap to pull Europe into a war against Russia over the Ukraine crisis - carry the idea of establishing a European army “instead” of NATO. 2. NATO equal to the U.S., which is also unwilling to look after these matters. Thus, it's the desire to protect itself by forming a united army. (In other words, the “more” emphasis in Juncker's sentence is the U.S.!).
The supporters of the first thesis are Europeans. They are saying, “We are not looking for an alternative to NATO”, however, there are quite a lot of emphases on this claim. Actually, Europe is in no condition to form an alternative to anything. The following is coming directly out of Juncker's mouth; “In the recent period, Europe lost a great amount of reputation. We are not taken seriously in foreign policies…”
While Europe doesn't have a common foreign policy, and even, while the countries are incompatible and in rivalry against each other under some foreign policy subjects, what kind of an armed power will the European Army be? Which political objectives will it carry out? Whose objectives will it attain? If the matter is Russia; they have a lot of enemies in Europe, as well as many friends!
Another unmentioned point is; “One of the advantages that will be provided by the establishment of a European army is the strong cooperation in developing and selling defense tools…” What's the extent of this sentence, who knows? (“The United European Army Discussion” 09/03 Deutsche Welle.)
There are also ones who say, “If this army can be established and work practically –there are also countries that support this, especially Germany- then it will be the European leg of NATO”, and if NATO is equal to the U.S.…
The attempts to re-integrate Iran with U.S./Western balances, the Arab coalition's intervention to the Yemen crisis, and additionally the Syria, Iraq matters, had been helpful in shining the idea of establishing an Arabian Army. There are arguments related with its shape, however… The most basic and the most stationary question is this; against which problem did Arabian countries manage to form a unity? (I guess that the 65-year-old Middle East history experienced over Israel is sufficient as an example) So, how come they will have an army?...
Is it really a good idea to arm a power, who doesn't have a common political willpower and has dubious militant skills and trainings, in the Middle East, where both micro and macro religious and ethnical problems are experienced, political and geographical subdivisions are conducted at the level of tribes, the members of that army will be sided with/members of one or more of those tribes, and where even super powers, especially the U.S., doesn't want to be involved in? …
The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus has elected a new President on Sunday. Mr. Mustafa Akıncı has been chosen as the president for the next 5 years. While the votes were still fresh, he entered into an argument with the President of the Republic of Turkey! Run away from the people who read this development with the “New period in Cyprus” mind. It's a new period in the Mediterranean Sea! The change in Nicosia is one of the tools of this.
It wasn't surprising to make out that Akıncı's policy “to turn the homeland-foster land relation with Turkey into a two sibling countries relation” would be producing arguments; however, it was expected from him to reach the “first minute, first goal” point. If this had been done by the fresh excitement of being a President, then they will fix it! If not, they will ask him “what's this comfort” and finding the one who “rushed” this would be required …
Two, the essential matter is the Cyprus-UN negotiations. Akıncı will be starting the Cyprus negotiations with the Rum side after 6 months postponement. He says; “The resolution of the Cyprus issue will be for the benefit of the Turkish and Rum communities of Cyprus. It will also provide consistency and benefit for Turkey, Greece and all the actors in the region. Natural gas resources and the economic collapse being experienced in Southern Cyprus can be evaluated as a new dynamic. Instead of fighting before the natural gas is discovered, it should be going to Europe over Turkey and Greece and become encouraging for a resolution.”
This is the complete frame. It seems that the new President of Turkish Cyprus is presenting a language and policy appropriate to regional equations, and even the global equations in the Mediterranean Sea. This will provide a manual for Egypt, Israel, Syria, Greek Cypriots, Turkey, Greece, EU and England-US-Russia, due to their special positions on the island and in the Mediterranean Sea, while looking ahead.
However, Mr. Akıncı shouldn't lose the abeam point while looking at the wide table. Rather than President Erdoğan's “he should hear what he's saying” statement, his “there will be different outcomes” and “we don't need to mention this necessary reason here” words are mentioning that.
