Austria covertly promotes Islamic Terror

There will be far reaching consequences binding for Europe, the Islamic World and America, if the Austrian anti-Turkish blackmail meets any success in next Sunday’s (October 2 2005) Luxemburg meeting of EU foreign ministers that will be presided by Britain. The intransigent position of the Austrian prime minister, who two days ago blocked an EU agreement on the ground rules for formal talks on the Turkey's entry, risks to blow up the negotiations due to begin on Monday.

With the Turkish foreign minister announcing that he will not travel to Luxembourg until the EU has agreed the negotiating framework for the membership talks, a successful exit seems to rely mostly on British commitment and increase of the pressure exercised on Austria. The Austrian attempt to link the beginning of EU – Turkey talks with a green light for negotiations with Croatia that have stalled by a dispute over an alleged war criminal is the trick by which Austria intends to block the beginning of the negotiations between EU and Turkey.

With Carla del Ponte, the United Nations' chief prosecutor for the former Yugoslavia, who has to certify Croatia's co-operation with her court, saying that the Zagreb government’s position was "disappointing", we should expect Croatia to extradite shortly Ante Gotovina, who has been indicted for war crimes, to the Hague-based tribunal.

Austria is the top of the European Anti-Turkish iceberg

One should not take the Austrian interest for Croatia seriously. The reasons are deeper, and there are more than one country or party interested in the final blockade of the Turkish candidacy.

There has always been a European hypocrisy towards Turkey; the Common Market could not be indifferent for the great possibilities the Turkish market would offer, and the Europeans wished to have Turkey signing a Customs Agreement. On this purpose, various European politicians and statesmen made an initial but truly meaningless pledge, and Turkey became an associate member in 1963. With overwhelming changes happened in the Turkish economy and politics over the past 15 to 20 years, starting with the Turgut Ozal’s premiership, the perspective of Turkey’s adhesion became part of the agenda of the European completion.

With Turkey occupying a most critical position at the South-Eastern part of Europe, with Balkans, Eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus region, Central Asia, Middle East involved, and with the largely privatized and blossoming Turkish economy becoming an attraction for foreign direct investment coming from all parts of the world, Turkey’s position within the European Union would not be a insipid one. It was clear that Turkey, if in Europe, would be one of the major players along with Germany, England and others. The two Gulf wars, the explosive situation in Iraq, the nuclear inferno of Iran, the perspectives of peace between Israel and the Palestinians underscored the importance of an area that, with Turkey in Europe, would become European border.

At that moment, dormant anti-Turkish and anti-Ottoman feelings, memories and predispositions have been awakened. First, started the former French President, Valery Giscard d’ Estaing, who had embarked on the most important adventure of his life, namely to synthesize approaches to, and to finally compose, a European constitution. Giscard expressed repeatedly baseless and historically false comments and ideas about Turkey that we refuted in earlier articles, ‘Irrelevant Giscard: the Anti-Turkish Euro-Myopic’
(http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/11-26-2004-62195.asp) and ‘The Anti-Turkish Crusade of Valery Giscard d’ Estaing’
(http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/12-5-2004-62548.asp).

Giscard’s racist and pathetic Anti-Turkism put the finishing touch to earlier positions of French politicians, Alain Juppe, a former prime minister condemned for his financial scandals and stripped of his political rights for some years, and N. Sarkozy, a permanent opponent to President Chirac, ever since Bernadette Chirac, France’s first lady, has not excused him for his earlier political betrayal in the 1995 presidential elections. At the same time, Giscard’s position was imitated by French political relics, the likes of Raymond Barre (the unpopular prime minister of the 1976 – 1981 French economic marasm) and Simone Veil, the ‘abortion minister’.

Useless to add that anti-Turkish, anti-Islamic, anti-African, and anti-Asiatic feelings and ideas had always consisted in the bulk of the European Fascism’s and Racism’s ideological arsenal, taking different local color per case (France, Germany, Italy, Greece).

German, Austrian, Cypriot politicians were added to the French anti-Turkish block, giving it therefore Pan-European dimension. To promote anti-Turkism various methods have been followed and several issues have been brought to surface: the Muslim religious identity of the population of that – secular – country, the unsolved Cyprus problem (as consequence of which Turkey does not recognize de jure the southern Cyprus state), the so-called ‘Armenian Genocide’ (that, if real, occurred before the establishment of Turkey!), etc.

Current European Anti-Turkism is the Corroboration of the European Failure

The emergence of the Pan-European Anti-Turkish block followed the French and Dutch referenda last May. The reasons for the negative results were different from one country to the other, but they testified to the great uneasiness with which the European citizens see the bureaucratic policy making at Brussels. At the same time, they proved that due to organized misinformation the average European has become victim of erroneous governmental policies that offer Europe not a single chance of surviving within the global economy environment.

With the Common Agricultural Policy absorbing a great amount of money to keep French peasants happy with their centralized state, with a tiny budget for Research, and with the French and German politicians unable to tell their voters the truth about the forthcoming shipwreck of Fortress Europe, average European masses perceive Turkey as a financial threat because the Turkish agriculture would supposedly take large portion of European money! This is an aberration, because what is needed is the total reshaping of the European financial priorities.

As long as German and French voters will keep daydreaming about the possibility to preserve the wreck of their Welfare State, Turkey will be viewed as a potential economic threat.

As long as no serious political – cultural – ideological debate is engaged about the real History of Europe and the possible Future of Europe the present Europeans can achieve, Turkey will be depicted as non-European because this deserves the filthy economic interests of the French bureaucracy. Traditional religious imagery that was forgotten – and was forgotten correctly because Turkey is not the continuation but the rejection of the Ottoman Empire – is being retrieved to depict the ‘imaginative’ Turk to the misinformed Europeans. It will have the historical accuracy of the paintings of Delacroix, whose ‘Death of Sardanapale’ has nothing to do with the today rediscovered historical realities of Nineveh at the last days of Assurbanipal’s reign.

More on this: How many roads are there for Europe?
(http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/8-8-2005-74467.asp)

The Consequences of a European Rejection of Turkey

It is clear that, although being a multipartite, liberal and secular Democracy, Turkey has to adapt itself to various European economic and political standards, and pursue economic policies of further integration with the European economy. With the outright majority of the Turkish politicians and citizens opting for Europe, it is to be expected that, if negotiations start next Monday, Turkey will undergo further changes that will be to the benefit of its people, and contribute a lot to averting a potential clash of religions in the form of Islamic Terror and Anti-Western Hatred.

Entering in negotiations with Turkey, the European Union highlights its own principles of Secular State that has yet to be implemented in various cases of religious European states (Greece’s constitution is composed ‘In the Name of Holy Trinity’).

Entering in negotiations with Turkey, the European Union underscores its own description as a union of peoples, not religions. In this way, it would be declared and proved that Europe is not a ‘Christian Club’.

In an interview with Turkey's Hurriyet newspaper, the British prime minister said "I sincerely believe that EU membership is Turkey's future" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/eu/story/0,7369,1581981,00.html). What would happen, if at the last moment the Austrian prime minister demands that, except the target of full membership, the possibility of a "privileged partnership" be mentioned (which is a red line for Turkey)?

Turkey will abandon Europe for good. No one will observe something peculiar in the following days. Turkey will seemingly cooperate with Russia, Caucasus and Central Asiatic countries, other countries in the Middle East and the Balkans.

But the European rejection of Turkey will be interpreted as a hysterical, Christian, anti-Islamic hatred, as a proof that the European rejection of Islamic extremism and fanaticism is fake, and that, when it comes to the defense of its falsified version of History, Europe becomes more fanatic and more extremist than Ossama Bin Laden. Even worse, the European rejection of Turkey will be taken as a racist political expression emanating from a Christian realm that intends to violate History (in reality Europe has been Islamic for more than half of its territory and for numerous centuries) and then pursue a straight and determinant policy against Islam as a direct continuity of the Crusades.

Even worse, this interpretation will be accepted by vast masses from Indonesia to Africa and from Norway to America, including of course the secular or not Turks of Germany and Austria.

A Total Disaster for Europe

The Ottoman Empire was the epitome of Islam; the idiotic French colonial plan of disentangling provinces like Egypt (and making of them semi-independent states) did not change this reality.

The French did not understand it and make the same mistake for a second time, now pulling the psychologically motivated Austrians (they had a vast empire that was inimical to the Ottoman Caliphate, but went also lost).

Turkey, although secular, remains the paramount center of Islam; the insignia of the Caliphate are in Istanbul, not in Riyadh, Algiers or Cairo. All the colonial petty states that have been colonially ruled during and after the departure of the British and the French administrations matter not, whether the French accept it or not.

Europe racist; Europe inimical; Europe anti-Islamic; Europe unrepentant!

This will be the motif of a new Islamic leader and party that will appear suddenly and unexpectedly, having no need to be extremist, terrorist and paranoiac in order to convince Muslim secular or religious masses allover the world. The proof will be there for both segments of the Muslim societies, and the desire for what would look as rightful revenge will be overwhelming.

Then, Ossama Bin Laden and Zarqawi will look pale, and September 11th will seem to be a paltry event compared to the terrible hit against Europe. European leaders with rudimentary logic have still the power to exorcize the apocalyptic demons of Austria…..