If that's the case; the average Western citizen should protest their countries close ties with the likes of Saudi, Egypt, Qatar and the U.A.E. all are more authoritarian than Turkey. What about Israel? Despite being democratic it has clear human rights abuses and only gets away with it because Uncle Sam wills it so. Despite being run by a leader who came to power by non democratic means; Egypt is still the 2nd largest recipient of U.S. aid after Israel. Sisi won by over 96 percent of the votes [amazing]. Despite being a dictator as long as he knows which side of the bread is buttered on; he gets away with it. Yet you'd talk about Turkey and its authoritarianism being 'offensive to the Western citizen'?
Again, Turkey has common interests with Russia; to be expected that it would seek close ties with Russia. 'Close ties' that do not include military cooperation and that do not in anyway undermine NATO. It's not as if any former Warsaw Pact country which is now part of NATO has zero relations or forms of cooperation with Russia on matters relating to trade and diplomacy. As such why it is such a big deal that Turkey tries to have good relations with Russia? Even Uncle Sam seeks close ties with Russia .... Given that Russia is deeply involved in Syria and that Turkey shares a border with Syria; what would be surprising would be if both Russia and Turkey had bad relations.
There is no indication that Erdogan intends to transform Turkey into a 'type of Islamic state'; more importantly there is no indication that the bulk of Turkey's population would welcome such a move. Turkey remains a secular Islamic state and the bulk of its people want to maintain this. It would be scary if thousands of Turks flocked to IS but that hasn't been the case has it? We have also not seen 'Islamist' Turk parties gaining massive amounts of support.
I don't know about protesting, but many do express such concerns.
Then they should also express concerns over other countries which are more authoritarian and violate more human rights than Turkey. If we're going to apply certain guidelines or rules of behaviour [based on Western values and the need to ensure the average Western citizen doesn't find anything offensive] on Turkey; why be selective? Let's apply the same guidelines or rules of behaviour on everyone; irrespective of whether they're allies/friendly countries/strategic partners [who spend a lot of USD/Euros].
Around here, people like to express a lot of concerns over authoritarian countries that violate human rights. It's popular to be concerned about people whose rights are being violated and who have to live under authoritarian regimes.
I for one do agree, Turkey isn't the only Middle East "ally" the West could do without.
...but he hired back 148 who were fired earlier, apparently incorrectly.
No can't help but think he has "president for life" aspirations. Given the number of military personnel he has purged, he better hope he has no serious military confrontation anytime soon.
Russia and Iran are only situational allies. And given Russia's willingness to trade Iranian presence in parts of Syria for SAA control over those parts of Syria, the limits of their allegiance are visible.
Thanks for the clarification but I was not implying that countries [Western or not] should not be concerned about human rights. By ''around here'' I take it you mean the West? Human rights are being violated in many countries. Why should Turkey be singled out? It's not as if Turkey has a monopoly on human rights violations. Countries and people who ''like to express a lot of concerns over authoritarian countries that violate human rights'' should speak out when human rights are violated; irrespective of whether that country is an ally or not. This the West is not doing; its being highly selective and hypocritical for its own interests.
I'll go further and say that the Middle East would be better of if it stopped being so dependent on the West. Granted, the Arabs are responsible for a lot of the mess the region's currently in but it's also due to interference by outsiders and flawed policies carried out the the past. The problem is not only do various Arab countries want to remain dependent on the West for their external security [not only against Iran but also against fellow Arabs] and regime survival; the West also wants those countries to remain dependent on it. Both sides benefit but who benefits the most? Certainly not the average citizen in those Arab countries.
Possibly, however he does control the Parliament, media, justice and security apparatus, so that leaves him in control of the main instruments of federal power.
In my opinion, no. I was in Gezi square during the 2013 protest. The square was packed as the Turks were railing against the increasing islamisation of the government and civil policies. The protest was calm and civil, speaking to a range of Turks at the time it was clear that anti-government violence was off the agenda. In the intervening years you can google news of Erdogans mass arrests of senior military officers; police; teachers and public servants. Erdogan has effectively de-skilled his opposition. The recent failed coup showed a debilitated opposition.
Just an addition this conversation, a Foreign Policy article Erdogan Just Committed Political Suicide, as the title suggests, Erdogan's cut his nose off to spite his face, and may have initiated a revolt against his rule. But what segments of the population would revolt? Would it be the urban intelligentsia and middle class? Or the urban and rural lower class working population?In my opinion, no. I was in Gezi square during the 2013 protest. The square was packed as the Turks were railing against the increasing islamisation of the government and civil policies. The protest was calm and civil, speaking to a range of Turks at the time it was clear that anti-government violence was off the agenda. In the intervening years you can google news of Erdogans mass arrests of senior military officers; police; teachers and public servants. Erdogan has effectively de-skilled his opposition. The recent failed coup showed a debilitated opposition.
As to 'popular' armed resistance, the Turks have been fighting Kurds in Turkey for decades. The army and intelligence agencies would likely pick off any new players very quickly.
I'll be in Istanbul for the first two weeks in June, if I don't post after 17JUN19.....you know I got it wrong
I'm no Turkey expert so going off what I was told by Turks in 2013 and open media since, Erdogan has wide support in the regions. The city people are well educated and largely secular. They don't want a neo-Ottoman Empire/ Greater Turkey and they are distressed at Erdogans creeping islamisation. These people aren't going to take up arms, as recently demonstrated they will vote. I can't see any armed insurrection against Erdogan. The remnants of Turkey's military not under Erdogan's control shot their bolt with the failed coup.
Yep, but if you look at the example of Iran or some other states where the economy is constricted either by sanctions or other political actions, populations don't always rise up and revolt for various reasons.
That's true they don't / can't!