EPTEuropean Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 477
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
REDBLUEGREEN
Germany1904 Posts
| ||
|
silynxer
Germany439 Posts
On June 03 2016 03:49 lastpuritan wrote: Oh tell me are you aware the fact that, if we believe Armenian claims: 1- Germans were aware of the genocide and took active roles planning it. 2- Germans helped Ottoman officials to flee in Germany after British courts, trying to protect them from avenging armenians. 3- German officers reported mass killings repeatedly. Some joined the mass killings and awarded! Does today's paper have any of these or only saying "we knew but we didn't step in sorry  " You are in for a surprise! As this is exactly what happened (just a quick google on my side). In a speech our president discussed openly your point one and three (two is a bit specific and I am too lazy to google around for it). There is right now an active debate about Germanies participation and guilt. It seems to be possible to look critically at the actions of your country (especially if so much time has passed), who would have thought! | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 03 2016 05:50 REDBLUEGREEN wrote: Recognizing the Armenian genocide is all well and good but does it solve anything? If knowledge of an ongoing genocide implies guilt like they decided upon we should act to stop ethnic cleansing / genocide in Myanmar instead of pondering over actions that happened 100 years ago. As always, we can do both. There is no reason to not recognize the Armenian genocide, so it should happen. It does not place all other efforts to deal with other genocides on hold to do so. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
lastpuritan
United States540 Posts
And Christoph Daum would be good as well. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4341 Posts
When Turkey has millions of refugees in it's borders that it can unleash at any time, as a "weapon". At least fortify the goddamn borders with fencing and guards before going down this path. Merkel is totally insane.Everyone has lost the plot.It's all going down. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9229 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
lastpuritan
United States540 Posts
"Tutti colpevoli, nessuno colpevole." | ||
|
Dapper_Cad
United Kingdom964 Posts
On June 06 2016 13:36 lastpuritan wrote: This whole refugee deal is illegal and probably against Geneva Conventions but you know. "Tutti colpevoli, nessuno colpevole." Pfff, those Geneva Conventions are sooooo 20th century. Back when the bad guys weren't really that bad so things like torture and building walls to keep out refugees seemed wrong. But then the human race developed SUPER TERROR and ULTRA WAR and we realised that all that stuff was hippie dippie bullshit. | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4782 Posts
On June 06 2016 13:36 lastpuritan wrote: This whole refugee deal is illegal and probably against Geneva Conventions but you know. "Tutti colpevoli, nessuno colpevole." I think you are going to have to explain how you arrive to these conclusions, because I'm 100% uncertain about what you mean. | ||
|
Dapper_Cad
United Kingdom964 Posts
On June 06 2016 16:41 Ghostcom wrote: I think you are going to have to explain how you arrive to these conclusions, because I'm 100% uncertain about what you mean. Amnesty International’s Director for Europe and Central Asia has labelled the deal "illegal". https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2016/06/eus-reckless-refugee-returns-to-turkey-illegal/ As far as I can work out Amnesty's justification for this statement is that the deal falls short of the standards set forth for the treatment of refugees in the 1951 Refugee Convention. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees The principle of non-refoulement basically says 'you can't send refugees back to where they are going to be fucked with big style' "No Contracting State shall expel or return ('refouler') a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion" I believe Amnesty feel able to take the position that the deal is illegal because it's refoulment at one remove. Yes, technically Europe isn't sending Syrians back to Syria (definitely illegal), but it is sending them to Turkey which is not following international standards for refugee care. This puts refugees in such a desperate situation that their basic human rights are under threat. For example: They have no right to work in Turkey and no route to obtaining that right, so they starve or become criminals. A google search gives me nearly 5 million Syrian refugees in Turkey. Writing this got me to thinking. 5 million people with next to no support living on the edge of a war zone while the international community almost ignores them. Perhaps this is why Merkel chose this moment to remind the EU, Turkey and, I'm sure, some political movements in her own constituency, of a genocide that happened when Germany turned a blind eye to events in Turkey. Which is not to say that I think Turkey's going to be bringing out the death squads any time soon, more that if people start starving to death in refugee camps an masse then that's pretty much a genocide by omission. | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4782 Posts
On June 06 2016 19:01 Dapper_Cad wrote: Amnesty International’s Director for Europe and Central Asia has labelled the deal "illegal". https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2016/06/eus-reckless-refugee-returns-to-turkey-illegal/ Amnesty International does not have the credentials to deem the refugee deal illegal. If they feel it is illegal they should bring it to the court and argue the case there. As far as I can work out Amnesty's justification for this statement is that the deal falls short of the standards set forth for the treatment of refugees in the 1951 Refugee Convention. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees The principle of non-refoulement basically says 'you can't send refugees back to where they are going to be fucked with big style' "No Contracting State shall expel or return ('refouler') a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion" Luckily, this isn't done. Turkey is not a war-torn country, nor particularly dangerous. The deal includes criteria for Turkey to treat the refugees properly, and money is supposed to be provided to ensure this. I believe Amnesty feel able to take the position that the deal is illegal because it's refoulment at one remove. Yes, technically Europe isn't sending Syrians back to Syria (definitely illegal), but it is sending them to Turkey which is not following international standards for refugee care. This puts refugees in such a desperate situation that their basic human rights are under threat. For example: They have no right to work in Turkey and no route to obtaining that right, so they starve or become criminals. Things can't be illegal just because Amnesty International considers them almost illegal. Oh and for your information, Turkey granted Syrian refugees the right to work back in January (Source) - although with limitations. There is plenty to criticize about the deal, but it's a pretty far stretch to call it illegal. Similarly, there is plenty to criticize about Turkey, but let's keep the hyperbole to a dull roar. | ||
|
Zaros
United Kingdom3692 Posts
On June 06 2016 20:47 Ghostcom wrote: Amnesty International does not have the credentials to deem the refugee deal illegal. If they feel it is illegal they should bring it to the court and argue the case there. Luckily, this isn't done. Turkey is not a war-torn country, nor particularly dangerous. The deal includes criteria for Turkey to treat the refugees properly, and money is supposed to be provided to ensure this. Not particularly dangerous or war torn? There has been a civil war in turkey for 30 years. | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4782 Posts
On June 06 2016 21:34 Zaros wrote: Not particularly dangerous or war torn? There has been a civil war in turkey for 30 years. That is quite the oversimplification of what is going on with regards to the conflict with the Kurds. If this is the standard to which we are going to reduce analysis of complex situations then the UK is currently in a civil war due to Northern Ireland. | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
On June 06 2016 21:34 Zaros wrote: Not particularly dangerous or war torn? There has been a civil war in turkey for 30 years. So is the UK ready to accept 75 million turkish refugees then? A "civil war" on the scale of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict goes on in almost every other country in the world, it's not a reason to call the country "war torn". It affects an area that's mostly very scarcely inhabited and even there, the day-to-day lives of people are affected only in very specific areas. Turkey's no heaven on Earth, but getting there from an actual war zone is already a great improvement of one's situation. I believe we shouldn't have Turks alone in dealing with the Syrian refugees just because they happen to border them, but there is no gain in overdramatizing the situation. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
turkey pretty much denies refugee status to noneuropeans so it's probably refoulement to ship people there without some individualized trial process. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
It is a good thing when organisations (or people) change in the face of incontrovertible evidence that their previously held positions were wrong and in contradiction of the facts. But one has to be deeply cynical when these neo-liberal attack dog institutions such as the OECD and the IMF start changing tack – in a diametric fashion – with the same senior officials still in charge. Simple justice would suggest that the executives of these organisations should resign forthwith as recognition of the damage their organisations have caused by bullying governments into policy implementation that were never consistent with any reasonable interpretation of what was going on. http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=33759 | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On June 06 2016 21:34 Zaros wrote: Not particularly dangerous or war torn? There has been a civil war in turkey for 30 years. There are different levels of what can be called a civil war. No it's not a civil war. Yes death and murder is sad yadda yadda yadda, but it varies in scale. | ||
| ||
