Tweet
Gates of Vienna
June 25, 2010 Friday 2:12 PM EST
The EU, Turkey, and the Islamization of Europe
by Baron Bodissey
Jun. 25, 2010 (Gates of Vienna delivered by Newstex) --
The article below by the Austrian scholar Harald Fiegl was posted on
May 15 at EuropeNews. Many thanks to JLH for translating it from the
original German.
The EU, Turkey, and the Islamization of Europe
by Dr. Harald Fiegl
A drastic change for the worse. What do Islam and full EU membership
for Turkey mean for the European model of life?
The EU regards itself as a community of values, a region of security,
freedom, prosperity and law and as a unique peace project. The
Christian-Western value base is not considered a Å`settled norm, but
the moral sensibility and cultural inheritance are a condensation of
Christianity and Enlightenment. As such, it is in stark contrast to
Islamic and oriental-patriarchal lifestyles with their group identity.
Seen from the outside, despite its economic difficulties, the EU is
still an economic partner and an immigration destination. It is also
in demand as a source for financing developmental aid projects. A
place where human rights receive more recognition than in other parts
of the world. It is not, however, a political power, a Å`global player.
Furthermore, it lacks a common domestic and foreign security policy,
and so a common demeanor.
The new European foreign service (EAD) with its 8,000 (?) employees
and 130 delegations will only be capable of a united front when the
common external and security policy (GASP) materializes.
Economic significance with political weakness makes the EU an object
of desire for other political powers. At the head of the line stands
the Islamization of Europe in combination with Turkeys intent to
dominate Europe ' specifically the EU. This country is preparing the
way for itself. There is no Å`give-and-take exchange. Turkey wants a
Turkish Europe!
The EU is in the same position as Byzantium before its conquest by the
Turks. Then as now, an opponent fighting with all means at its
disposal was facing a disunited, absolutely self destructive entity.*
The
Islamization of the entire world is being pursued by Muslims with
determination at all levels. As an Islamic country, Turkey strengthens
this tendency by adding its own expansive nationalism.
How Can These Claims Be Perceived?
By the structure of the EU
By the structure of Turkey and the worldwide spread of Islam
By the claims of hegemony in the community of nations
The Structure of the EU
At every opportunity, there is talk of commonalities and the
unification, indeed re-unification of Europe and with that, the
absolutely imperative expansion of the EU to a minimum of 40 members.
In fact, however, these commonalities are absent and so is the
prerequisite for a successful expansion. In the absence of common
successes, it appears that the EU is seeking its salvation in
expansion, even if the expansion finds little agreement in the
European population. that is brought on by the expansion. Add to that
the fact that the will of the majority of the European population has
no voice in the decisions of the EU organs of governance. Is the EU
just a cornucopia for skilled lobbyists and a high level employment
agency?
This is especially true of the decision to accept Turkey as a full member.
In other words, the oft-mentioned Å`European Spirit is moribund. But
only something like it can create a self-conscious Europe which will
play a decisive role in the world.
After the fall of the Iron Curtain, the EU did not make lasting use of
the possibilities for new and independent connections with Russia, and
thus supported the return of the Russian mindset to its own
geopolitical claims. Russia sees expansion of the EU as part of the US
encirclement policy, of which Ukraine and Georgia are especially
blatant examples.
The independent policy of French president Sarkozy is a vivid example
of national interests. Sarkozy is thinking French and not European,
when he speaks of the Mediterranean Union and when he promotes French
military alliances or treaties over nuclear cooperation with countries
of the Mediterranean region.
The new members from Eastern Europe see their foreign policy support
in the USA and align their foreign policy with US wishes.
Great Britain sails in the wake of the USA.
Expansion ' together with globalization ' has brought heightened
pressure on the majority of the European population to produce, often
combined with lower income to the point of financial starvation. Jobs
are lost, foreign capital is decisive in European industry (China,
Libya and other Arabic countries). For a large part of the European
population, the EU now offers a very modest living standard.
The Å`Lisbon Goal is a true declaration of bankruptcy. The EU was
supposed to be the most innovative and economically significant area
of the world. Now that the impossibility of this plan is obvious, the
goal is being postponed by 10 years and summarily re-named Strategy
2020.
Though the EU still comes up trumps through comparatively significant
economic successes in international tests of strength, disillusion has
set in this area too, through accumulation of debt across the entire
EU, especially in the PIGS ' Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain.
Dramatically rising unemployment ' caused not least by outsourcing '
intensifies this disenchantment.
The Special Case of Turkey
Between US-NATO wishes and a split of interests in member states,
Turkey was granted membership in the Council of Europe in 1999 in a
confidential paper which was not available to the public. In December
2004, 407 representatives in the EU parliament voted for negotiations
with no further delay. Only 262 voted against. On October 3, 2005,
negotiations began with the goal of full membership. (This
counterintuitive position has been held to this day with no regard for
public opinion. The granting of asylum to Turkish citizens is not seen
as a contradictory indicator.)
Despite a lack of progress in meeting entry requirements, Turkey
continues to receive signals of a foreseeable time for entry.
In the beginning of 2010, the Turk, Mevlüt Cavusoglu was elected chair
of the parliamentary assembly of the Council of European.
Istanbul was chosen as the cultural capital of Europe for 2010. The
festival city, Salzburg, has a sponsor from Turkey.
Critical remarks in progress reports continue to have no consequences
(e.g., Cyprus, religious freedom).
In its judgment of Turkey, the EU for instance, disregards the fact:
- - - - - - - - -
That Turkey has great deficits in human rights and therefore does not
fulfill the basic requirements for acceptance. (In contrast to these
criteria, Turkey was granted Å`sufficient fulfillment of basic
requirements.)
That special role of the army and religious authority, which is
anchored in the constitution of the (national-religious) unity
government is EU adverse and so Turkey is not and cannot become a
democracy in the Western sense.
That the public life of Turkey is determined by Islam, in other words,
by ideological basics which are the exact opposite of the Western
model of life.
That a full membership for Turkey means an entry with fulfilling the
requirements and, in consideration of the size and otherness of this
land, plainly means the final abandonment of the feeling of
togetherness and the end of the work of European integration.
That the entry of Turkey brings with it an enormous financial burden
for the EU and, aided by this financing, all the Turkish EU
contradictions, including military ambitions, are bolstered.
That the EU, in the absence of any foreign policy of its own, would
stumble in the wake of Turkish interests into Turkeys conflicts with
its neighbors.
The foreign policy of the EU is a reflection of national interests and
accordingly not in a position to counteract US hegemonic moves. It
must eventually come to the realization that, despite all criticism of
the USA. it is the only Å`player in the Western world.
European Navel-Gazing Is No World Policy
Although EU deficits become ever more visible, and negative polls and
warning voices of important personalities are not lacking, all EU
governmental organs are celebrating the accomplishments of the work of
integration with events and brochures.
The message of all these Å`events is clothed in catchphrases and
tranquilizer words. Take for example the following vocabulary of
deception and clouding of the mind:
Abrahamic religions: the patriarch Abraham connects all monotheistic
religions. (Why are the obvious differences in the way the religions
are lived and practiced not addressed? A common ancestral father does
not help us live together. Common rules of play will do that.)
Islam is a peace-loving religion; you must distinguish between Islam
and Islamism; there is no unified Islam; the head scarf is an ordinary
article of clothing; there are prejudices against Islam, even
Islamophobia.
Turkey is a functioning democracy; Turkey is a secular state; Erdogan
and his party are Å`moderately Islamist. This is per se a contradiction
in terms.
Negotiations open to results; in a plebiscite the people will have the
last word. (President Fischer rightly noted that a plebiscite requires
a law which can only be determined after completion of negotiations
and ratification by parliament. Thus, the promise of a plebiscite
proves to be a placebo, since no political force to speak of can nor
will come through for such an illogical procedure ex post facto.)
During the last Austrian presidency, there was even the slogan: Å`The
EU ought to be fun!
Like the sorcerers apprentice, the EU is moving rapidly toward its
self-immolation. Criticism is declared to be prejudice and the concept
of prejudice is deformed to be an advantage.
It does not escape the notice of the critically thinking citizen that
all these statements from the media, the authorities and from the EU
describe a fairy tale world, from which there will someday be a rude
awakening.
The Islamization of Our Lives
The Islamization of Europe (and the whole world) is not only the
result of Muslim immigration since WW II, but has been a declared goal
of Islam since the time of Mohammed. Right from the beginning, war in
Islam has been a part of spreading the faith, and is therefore Å`just.
The Crusades were all concerned with the re-taking of Palestine and
other Christian areas from the Muslims and were in no way
imperialistic projects. They were reactions to Muslim attacks. Without
the Crusades, Europe would have been subjugated by Islam centuries
ago.
The de-hellenization of Asia Minor began with the appearance of the
Turks (Seljuks) in the Byzantine Empire (1071). The dream of Ottoman
(Turkish) world empire led to the conquest of Constantinople and the
Balkans came to a close over about three centuries with the sieges of
Vienna in 1529 and 1683 and the succeeding Å`Turkish wars.
This dream of a Turkish world empire has become reality again at this
time through acceptance into the EU ' without fulfilling a single
condition.
The technological and consequent military superiority of Christian
countries beginning in the 16th century ultimately led a counterweight
to the Muslim military
Finally, the Islamic world fell behind and was even occupied by
Christian countries. This enabled the Christian countries to function
as protective powers for Christian minorities living in Muslim
countries.
Weakened by two world wars, Europe lost its leadership role in the
world. Today, non-European countries determine what happens.
Consequently, European values and culture exist merely as one variant
in a worldwide offering. European culture and values are already
judged negatively in many places. There is no longer any question of
being a role model.
A particular milestone in this development is the first oil crisis of
the 1970s. Europes dependence on oil led to the Europe-Arabic Dialogue
(Eurabia). This is an exchange of oil for good will toward
Arabic-Islamic interests and/or values. That gave rise to Å`the Islam
prohibition.
The fact is that Muslim countries treat Western countries with
unaccustomed disrespect, of which the conflict of Switzerland with
Libya is a clear example. The indifference of Somali authorities to
the piracy of mercantile shipping and the attitude of Iran in the
question of nuclear armament are two further examples.
Completely unperturbed by Western criticism, Iran supports Hizbullah
with modern weapons. Without any objection, the West learns of the
Islamization of Kosovo, Bosnia-Herzegovina and other regions by means
of Saudi Arabian funds.
The January 2010 EU parliament resolution concerning incidents against
Christians in Egypt and Malaysia as well as the proposed resolution of
the Austrian parliament in July, 2008 on the worldwide discrimination,
repression and persecution of Christians underline the precarious
situation of Christians (non-Muslims) in Muslim countries. There were
no repercussions. We are contemporary witnesses to the greatest
persecution of Christians of all times. Persecution of Christians is
not some reminiscence from the age of Rome.
The Islam Prohibition can be traced at the international as well as
the national level. It consists of a ban on putting critical questions
to Islam. In the dialogue, each and every discussion is ended by the
discussion-stopping arguments Å`general suspicion and Å`racism. The
order of the day is twisting the facts by Muslim authorities and
compliant Western Å`helpers.
An especially striking example is the portrayal of Islam as the
Å`religion of peace, even though Islam was conceived as an immutably
battle-ready ideology. (Indeed, it should be noted that peace in
Islamic terms means the state of the world after its total
Islamization. To that extent, the designation Å`religion of peace is no
contradiction even if Islam ' legitimately by its own standards '
employs violence. The non-Muslim has the choice of conversion,
emigration, or death.)
The UN human rights declaration is commemorated every year on Human
Rights Day, the 10th of December. Thus, the allegedly universal
validity of this socio-political accomplishment is recalled. Not
commemorated is the fact that, for Muslims, the 1990 Cairo Declaration
of Human Rights in Islam applies ' sharia, Islamic law.
The Å`Western idea is that human rights coincide with the concept of
individual freedom. That includes religious freedom, understood as the
freedom of the individual to choose his religious perspective, or to
reject it.
The Islamic idea is that religious freedom is the unrestricted right
of Islam to expand as a collective (umma) and displace all other
religions and lifestyles. Islam is an alliance of religion and
politics!
In this sense, the following points should be seen as closely
connected and as steps to the Islamization of Europe (the world).
Since the 1970s ' approximately contemporary with the first oil crisis
' some Islamic states have been attempting to submit human rights to
moral relativism by referencing cultural and religious traditions.
In 1990, Pakistan proposed a ban on defamation of Islam to the UN
Human rights Council. The proposal was expanded to Å`religions and also
accepted as well by the UN General Assembly.
As a consequence, the Å`Viennese World Conference on Human Rights in
1963 struck a compromise. Since that time, Å`various historic, cultural
and religious conditions are recognized.
In the human rights year 1998, at the proposal of Iran, the UN General
Assembly declared 2001 the Å`UN year of dialogue between civilizations
and thereby introduced the process of recognizing multiplicity as
enrichment in a globalized world (creative diversity). Austria was
host of one of the meetings in 2001.
On December 10, 2007, the speaker of the Organization of the Islamic
Conference declared in the UN human rights council that the Cairo
Human Rights Declaration of 1990 supplements the UN human rights
declaration of 1948 since it is concerned with the cultural and
religious features of Muslim countries. (Thereby, Islamic law was de
facto recognized, even though it contradicts Western ideas of rights.)
The speaker of the OIC declared simultaneously that discussions of
sharia in the framework of the UN human rights council are an insult
to Islam and therefore impermissible.
Following up on this suggestion, the UN human rights council decided
in June, 2008, that religious discussions could be led only by
academics.
Therefore, recognition of special features, respect and tolerance is
the basis for relations between civilizations. That is the opposite of
integration.
The EU agency for basic rights tracks racism and xenophobia. Combating
Islamophobia is a primary concern. Christophobia is not mentioned,
although the repression and persecution of Christians have grown to
the point where they are impossible to miss.
In 2005, Europeans made Islamophobia equal to anti-Semitism and thus
made it a crime.
In the Council of Europe resolution 1605 of April 15, 2008, a
distinction is made between Islam and Islamic fundamentalism, whereby
discussion of Islam and its ideology of war becomes taboo.
The president of the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe,
the Turk Mevlut Cavusoglu, said in his inaugural address in January
2010 that intercultural and inter-religious dialogue must be
strengthened. All kinds of racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism and all
other kinds of similar phobias which lead to discrimination and
intolerance must be stamped out. Of hostility to Christians, which we
experience daily, there was not a word.
This stress on Islamophobia is especially questionable since there is
no legal definition and the following standards presumably invoke the
Islam Prohibition:
The Council of Europes Framework Resolution 2008/913/JI of November
28, 2008 on legally enforced combating of particular forms and
expressions of racism and xenophobia provides, in article 1 that the
following intentional acts be made punishable by law (official crime)
Å`public incitement to violence or hate against a person or group of
persons or member of that group defined according to race, skin color,
religion, ancestry, national or ethnic origin
As a direct result of the Islam Prohibition, we can explain why, at
the demand of the Muslims, or in eager anticipation of obeying them,
the majority society is considerate of alien lifestyles and ideas and
thus fully accepts segregation. (The practice of sharia in British
jurisprudence can be seen as abandonment of self, a submission to
Islam):
No pork or alcohol
Gender separation in school and in public. Knowledge of
psychoanalysis, e.g., of Sigmund Freud is not considered.
Women may only appear in public in the company of their husbands or
only with a head covering.
Crosses removed from schools and hotel rooms.
Refusal to salute the flag in the army and extensive special treatment
of Muslim recruits.
Consideration for the effects of the month of fasting.
Consideration for the Islamic prohibition against interest (Islamic
banking). Banking may not charge interest nor deal in businesses that
are repugnant to Islam (alcohol, pork, gambling, etc.) All these are
signs of a progressive Islamization of all aspects of life. In truth,
a systematic and unconditional discrimination against all things not
Muslim!
Almost exclusively, the non-Muslims answer to this threatening
situation is dialogue. Since Vatican II, even the Vatican believes in
dialogue.
In countless interrreligious/intercultural dialogues, Christianity and
the West are equated and this prevents the interpretive power of our
laws from being placed beyond all doubt. Anyone who feels connected to
neither Christianity nor Islam (syncretists, agnostics, atheists)
justifiably asks: Å`Who is representing me in all the interreligious
dialogues and why is my philosophy of life and the separation of
religion and state of less value than religious belief, especially
Islamic?
This applies, for instance, to the president. He describes himself as
an agnostic. Also never heard from are those who are in contact with
Muslims in the course of their everyday lives and must experience the
difficulties of integration, in the police, emergency services,
hospitals and schools.
In many places, Islamic ideas are fully accommodated, from Muslim work
clothes in the municipality of Vienna to the complete prohibition on
discussing Muslim moral concepts. Neither the ORF, the theater nor the
churches ask critical questions. They are content with Å`playful
encounters like hiking or soccer.
The exchange of thoughts is without intellectual depth and corresponds
to a wine-tasting or the exchange of recipes. Some representatives of
the church even see Islam as an ally against secularization.
With respect to the proclamation Å`demand and encouragement, the
measures taken by the administration to further integration are
content with the encouragement. By this means, the parallel society is
anchored still more firmly. Even the requirement to learn German is
weakened by a multitude of foreign language translations and
translation services. So learning German is actually no longer
necessary in many places in Austria.
The result of this attitude is the Muslim parallel society which is
not integrated nor willing to integrate and frequently has no respect
for the indigenous population. There is hatred for the West. The law
of the state has no effect in the parallel society. The police have no
reach. Justice is determined by local ' mostly Muslim ' patterns.
Consider too, that a society is acting Å`positively in terms of racism,
when it does not insist upon its own standards from immigrants and
closes one eye instead of helping.
What Does All This Mean for Coexistence With the Muslims?
Can western lifestyle (secular individualism with free will, voluntary
religious practice and individual identity) even persist against
Islamic and oriental-patriarchal lifestyles (group identity and
nationalism)?
The basic elements of this Western lifestyle are being seriously
challenged by Islam, even though these elements are the result of a
long, at times painful, hard fought process of consciousness raising
and are regarded by Western civilization as an achievement. These are,
above all
Separation of religion and state
Religious freedom, freedom of expression even to its extreme
Religion and sexuality are private affairs
Art is allowed anything
Gender equality
Islam was recognized as a religion in Austria with the Islam Law of
1912. The requirement for recognition was Å`compatibility with the laws
of the state. Despite all warnings, this has not been checked for a
long time. Persecution of Christians in non-Western countries, of
secular immigrants, and Islamic writings (fatwas) inimical to the West
could not bring an end to this turning of a blind eye.
The government is required to make clear its interpretive authority
vs. Islam and to do away with Islams deviations from the laws on
religious freedom. Put simply, the authorities must actualize the
Å`explanatory remarks and the Å`report of the special commission
concerning the law of 1912. This task has been waiting for nearly 100
years!
It is unacceptable that Islamic values have not been dealt with in the
ordinary course of parliamentary discussions but has been demanded
Å`from outside.
The authorities must also clarify whether the concept Å`infidel, by
which Islam designates all non-Muslims as second-class people, is, in
the sense of the above-mentioned framework resolution Å`public
incitement to violence or hate against a group or member of a group of
persons defined as a religion according to the criteria.
The Structure of Turkey
Turkey is a regional power with a targeted domestic and foreign
policy, by means of which it confronts a split EU foreign policy with
great pertinacity. It pursues its own interest exclusively, often
blatantly in contradiction to EU interests. Completely in tune with
this foreign policy opportunism is the direction of its foreign policy
with regard to the EU/Europe, but also the Islamic and central Asian
area.
There is also no shortage of military interventions to effect its
foreign policy goals. There have been ca. 3,000 Turkish soldiers
stationed on Cyprus since 1974, although the grounds for intervention
(overthrow of the Greek military regime) have been gone for years.
Turkey also intervenes everywhere where it wants to assert its
interests, not militarily, but with substantial political and economic
pressure.
That includes diplomatic actions in the USA and the EU in regard to
the Armenian genocide and the Kurdish separatist movement PKK. Still
fresh in memory is the Turkish intervention against the installation
of the Danish president as NATO general secretary. Freedom is not
important to Turkey; Muslim sensibilities are. Nonetheless, it was
rewarded for this extortion by a strengthening of US good will.
Turkeys anti-Western positions are, of themselves, no surprise. In the
OIC, Turkey appoints the general secretary and therefore functions as
the important spokesman in the controversy between Islam and the West.
That was true in the clash over the Mohammed cartoons and applies
presently to the OICs efforts to subordinate the UN human rights
declaration to sharia. By this means, criticism of the Islamic
perception of human rights is to be stopped. Turkey has long since
visibly returned to the Islamic camp. There is no question of a bridge
between cultures. Atatürk and his secular orientation are nothing any
more than lip service,
Turkey has a constitution adverse to the EU: political life and
religious practice are under the purview of the military, even though
the Islamic regime is working to reduce this influence. Religious
practice and religious adherence are not a private matter as they are
in the Western world.
The religious authority, Diyanet, regulates religious life for Sunni
Islam, the majority faith. Other sects are disadvantaged. The once
flourishing Christian community has shrunk to numerical
insignificance. Even 20 million (Islamic?) Alewites are hampered in
their religious practice by the Sunni majority.
Diyanet names the imams and sends them into countries with Turkish or
Turkish-descended populations, for example, Germany and Austria. In
both countries, Diyanet maintains branch offices like a colonial
administration, to encourage the religious and national connections to
Turkey ' but not integration. From this grows a state within a state
with the purpose of land acquisition. In Austria, this branch is
called ATIB = Ayrupa-Türk Islam Birligi = Turkish Islamic Union for
Cultural Cooperation (literally, European-Turkish Islamic Unification
with no reference to cultural cooperation).
The Turkish laicité was decreed from above. It did not grow from the
bottom up as in the West. The comparison with France is misleading.
The Turkish state is not religion-neutral like France. On the
contrary, it advantages Sunni Islam and discriminates against all
other religions and beliefs.
The founder of the Turkish republic, Kemal Atatürk, introduced
separation of religion ad state ca. 80 years ago. The military was
established as the guardian of this lay establishment, which led to
the more recent past and then to the ban on parties.
Despite all efforts at control, Å`Kemalism, with its attempt to implant
laicism in the population, has failed. To this day, there are two
antagonistic groups in the population: the rural, religious people,
including those who migrated to the cities and the secularly oriented
city dwellers, whose numbers are dwindling.
Practically speaking, Turkey is in a culture war. Head-covering
remains an ideologically highly explosive question. The ban on action
for the ruling party the president and many other politicians because
of misinterpretation of laicism found no majority with the
constitutional judges.
Misunderstanding the facts, the EU took the side of an Islamic state
and applauded the process. One resource for this cultural conflict is
the influx of capital from Muslim sources. Anyone who practices Islam
can count on financial support. This applies not only to residence,
work, school and groceries, but also to entrepreneurs in finance and
contracting.
The Å`moderate Islamist government is taking Turkey step-by-step to an
Islamic theocracy and in managing this is completing the necessary
ideological re-orientation.
The Turkish constitution foresees not only the special role of the
military and religious authorities but also the ethnic-religious
centralized state. Accordingly, Turkeys constitution recognizes no
ethnic minorities, including, for instance, 12 million Kurds.
A striking nationalism is quickening in Turkey and protected by
criminal laws (no insulting of Turkey, no criticism of official
positions on Armenians, Cyprus). Testifying to this nationalism are
the ubiquitous Atatürk posters and statues together with the
country-wide motto, seen everywhere: Å`Everyone who is a Turk is
fortunate. This nationalism plus Islam explains the unwillingness and
incapacity of Turks to integrate in Europe (Turkish organizations
declared during the Å`Islam conference of former interior minister
Schäuble that they did not adhere to German values).
A horrifying demonstration of this religio-nationalistic attitude is
the murder of three fellow employees in a bible print shop in Malatya
in 2007. The perpetrators justified themselves with their battle
against enemies of the faith and of the Turkish nation. SPD EU
representative, Turkish-born Vural ?-ger, poured oil on the fire by
placing the blame on the EU because of its push for reform in Turkish
law.
An accommodation of the Turkish constitution to the EU would mean
relinquishing these two pillars and thus the end of Atatürks Turkey.
On the other hand, it is obvious that a similar process in the
Å`negotiations, would lead the EU to accept a military dictatorship or
a theocracy into its ranks. In either case, it will become a plaything
of Turkish politics. Reconciliation policy, which aims at an
improvement in relations with neighbors, is contained within tight
boundaries. The Armenian-Turkish thaw was followed quickly by a cold
front.
Unperturbed by all these contradictions, Turkey steps forth with
absolutely incomprehensible declarations and demands and talks about
an entry date of 2013-15 in the following ways:
We have fulfilled all entry requirements and have a right to full membership.
The EU has no right to reject Turkey. Turkey reproaches the EU in the
coarsest terms as being a Christian club, but is not above
participating significantly in the OIC, an organization of exclusively
Muslim countries. There is no Christian equivalent of the OIC.
As far as the Turkish president is concerned, the Balkans extends into
Turkey, when it is a question of integrating the Balkans. He
interprets the continuing visa requirement for Bosnia as an example of
the disadvantaging of a Muslim country, compared to Serbia, for which
the requirement was lifted recently.
Even in the European council, The (proposal of a) European flag with
the cross ' modeled on the pan-European movement ' failed because of
Turkeys resistance.
Turkey accuses the EU of discrimination and complains about
admonitions. In truth, it is getting special treatment like no member
country has gotten until now. Even Croatia was treated more harshly.
Turkey is oblivious and, like an invading army, ignores the
sensitivities of the population of the EU.
Turkey is blazing its trail into the EU. It extorts agreement and
shows no willingness to fulfill the entry requirements. It is
following its usual extortionist negotiating tactics: flatter, be
insulted, threaten. It wants a Turkish Europe, as expressed clearly in
February, 2008 by the Turkish president, when he appeared in Cologne.
Serbia was invited to apply on the basis of a Brussels decision.
Turkey made its application at the time against the recommendation of
the EU.
As a result of this unfair and tenacious negotiating tactic, Turkey is
well represented in the committees and PR apparatus of the EU and is
shaping its Å`own entry requirements. Together with Spain, it is
setting the tone in the UN initiative, Å`Alliance of Civilizations. A
tactically feeble EU confronts this Turkish determination, backed by
the hegemonic interests of the USA. This explains why
All warning voices ' no matter how high-ranking or competent ' echo unheard.
The organs of the EU do not recognize that a full membership for
Turkey does not bring a single advantage for most of the European
population. Rather, exclusively substantial disadvantages.
The official organs of the EU consider their own population their
greatest enemy and avoid polls and plebiscites.
All Å`pro arguments are distortions of fact as, for example,
Turkey is the realization of the union of Islam and democracy and is a
bridge to the Islamic world.
Based on its constitution, it is not a democracy in the Western sense
of the word. It is a daily showplace of conflict between Islam and
secularity. The Islamic world sees Turkey either as a lever and a part
of its Islamization program or, because of its military pact with
Israel, as an enemy.
The geopolitical position of Turkey and its military power would
enhance the role of the EU in the Western world.
Quite the contrary: since the EU has no intervention policy of its
own, Turkey would use the EU for its own purposes. In any case, the EU
would be drawn into Turkeys conflicts with its neighbors and
destabilized along with it.
With the NABUCO gas pipeline, Turkey has a key role in providing for
Europes energy needs.
Actually, it is not clear what gas will be fed into it.
The EU promised entry and Turkey has been waiting 40 years.
There is no democratically legitimized promise. During this time,
Turkey has developed in a direction away from Europe. Indeed, in the
1970s, it expressly turned its back on the EU and/or Europe.
Without entry, the reforms in Turkey will collapse.
For European council charter member Turkey, the reforms are an
obligation overdue for 10 years and were supposed to demonstrate
Turkish self-interest. The EU has no obligation to grant a reward.
The EU needs Turkeys economic potential for further development.
Entry is not based on economic special interests, especially if market
potential can only be appreciated by means of financing by the
investor and considerable risk and corruption exist. Turkey is one of
the IMFs biggest debtors, a developing country with typical
characteristics, like greater participation in agriculture (about
30%), high unemployment (also among youth) and illegal employment, low
per capita income, child labor, insufficient patent protection and
unreliable law enforcement. On the basis of the existing customs
union, there is already close economic linkage between the EU and
Turkey. A full entry offers no additional economic possibilities.
EU ' pardon me? What is that? The EU does not exist! A sacrifice of
the intellect?
Hegemonic Claims Within the Community of Nations
Who determines the direction of things?
With no claim to thoroughness, and conscious of the remarks above, let
the following picture apply: whoever separates from European
navel-gazing and sees the world from outside, recognizes that, besides
several countries active in world politics, Islam and international
capital flow combined with providing energy and raw material are the
hand on the tiller.
The USA as leading world power is presumably at the head. Its foreign
policy is energy. China is noticeable by its securing of raw materials
in Africa and elsewhere. In this race of world powers for oil and raw
materials it is often unnoticed that the Islamic world is pursuing not
only economic, but ideological interests ' namely the Islamization of
the world.
How much this Islamization has been strengthened is seen in the
positive signals President Obama is sending the Muslim world. In his
speech at Cairo University, he extended his hand to the Muslim world.
Even the unconditional support of Israel is no longer his policy.
An international net of capital streams beyond the control of national
governments, and also international organizations spans the entire
world and makes its own decisions. Wall Street plays a prominent role.
The motto: the financial position must remain attractive and that
determines all other policies! That also applies to President Obamas
financial package.
The question arises: what the individual must and can do in this
situation, especially those who feel a loyalty to European values.
The burden of our history compels us not only to reflect on what is
past and vow Å`Never again, but also to vigilance about the spirit of
the times, the Å`mainstream. In art, in many media, in the churches, in
scholarship and in many political parties it is in style to turn a
blind eye to the subjects Islam and Turkey. Restricted freedom of
expression and fear of speaking out are dominant.
Making middle class society and Christianity ' especially the Catholic
Church ' objects of contempt, the attack on the family, the demand for
Å`gender mainstreaming and equal standing for homosexual relationships
are no substitute. Individual boundaries need to be set. Our
civilization must not be the Å`show and tell of a directionless good
time society.
As in the past, so also today, looking at the truth and speaking out
publicly is necessary. Especially because the past burdens our life to
the present day. Whoever wants to learn the truth, will learn it.
Excuses after the fact will mean nothing. Even if many people say; Å`My
mind is made up. Dont confuse me with facts.
Perhaps this time, with sufficient perseverance and courage, it will
be possible to create a counterweight to the spirit of the times and
to explain that 2 plus 2 equals 4 and not something else.
Or mankind may follow the path of greed, betrayal and indifference to
apocalyptic conditions. The worldwide economic difficulties should be
a warning that it is high time for a reversal. The Rhine maidens are
demanding the return of the Rhine gold.
Requests to speak, letters to the editor, commentaries in newspapers,
speeches and the like can, in sufficient number, can cause change.
Perhaps the above comments will be able to help with that. Whoever
fights can win; whoever does not fight has already lost. If future
generations are to have any respect for us, we must intervene for
truth and against looking the other way ' to the point of civil
disobedience.
Out future will be decided not only by the achievements of the past,
but by a conscious intervention of European society on behalf of it
own values ' especially family values and economic solidarity.
Isolation of the individual and increase of the precarious economic
conditions could give impetus to a slogan like Å`Islam is the answer.
Unalloyed individualism will bring a swift dissolution to any society.
Famous names tell us:
Indifference is the mildest form of intolerance. (Karl Jaspers)
What you inherited from your ancestors ' work to earn and possess it. (Goethe)
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary
act. (Orwell)
When tolerance becomes a one-way street, it leads to cultural suicide.
(Lieutenant Colonel Allen West)
Freedom is never more than one generation from extinction. We didnt
pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for,
protected, and handed on for them to do the same. (Ronald Reagan)
My greatest disappointment is the recognition that humanity does not
learn from experience. (Doris Lessing)
Difficulties are not overcome by not talking about them. (Berthold Brecht)
Reason becomes nonsense, blessing becomes plague. (Goethe)
Truth is the most precious thing we have. Let us deal with it
frugally. (Mark Twain)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Notes:
* Pascal Bruckner, 2008, Å`The Guilt Complex: Å`All modern thinking can
be reduced to the schematic denunciation of the West, with emphasis on
hypocrisy, violence and heinousness.The European bad conscience, based
on imperialism, fascism and racism has gripped the continent, and is
destroying its creativity, its feeling of self-worth, and is
decimating its optimism.
From: A. Papazian
June 25, 2010 Friday 2:12 PM EST
The EU, Turkey, and the Islamization of Europe
by Baron Bodissey
Jun. 25, 2010 (Gates of Vienna delivered by Newstex) --
The article below by the Austrian scholar Harald Fiegl was posted on
May 15 at EuropeNews. Many thanks to JLH for translating it from the
original German.
The EU, Turkey, and the Islamization of Europe
by Dr. Harald Fiegl
A drastic change for the worse. What do Islam and full EU membership
for Turkey mean for the European model of life?
The EU regards itself as a community of values, a region of security,
freedom, prosperity and law and as a unique peace project. The
Christian-Western value base is not considered a Å`settled norm, but
the moral sensibility and cultural inheritance are a condensation of
Christianity and Enlightenment. As such, it is in stark contrast to
Islamic and oriental-patriarchal lifestyles with their group identity.
Seen from the outside, despite its economic difficulties, the EU is
still an economic partner and an immigration destination. It is also
in demand as a source for financing developmental aid projects. A
place where human rights receive more recognition than in other parts
of the world. It is not, however, a political power, a Å`global player.
Furthermore, it lacks a common domestic and foreign security policy,
and so a common demeanor.
The new European foreign service (EAD) with its 8,000 (?) employees
and 130 delegations will only be capable of a united front when the
common external and security policy (GASP) materializes.
Economic significance with political weakness makes the EU an object
of desire for other political powers. At the head of the line stands
the Islamization of Europe in combination with Turkeys intent to
dominate Europe ' specifically the EU. This country is preparing the
way for itself. There is no Å`give-and-take exchange. Turkey wants a
Turkish Europe!
The EU is in the same position as Byzantium before its conquest by the
Turks. Then as now, an opponent fighting with all means at its
disposal was facing a disunited, absolutely self destructive entity.*
The
Islamization of the entire world is being pursued by Muslims with
determination at all levels. As an Islamic country, Turkey strengthens
this tendency by adding its own expansive nationalism.
How Can These Claims Be Perceived?
By the structure of the EU
By the structure of Turkey and the worldwide spread of Islam
By the claims of hegemony in the community of nations
The Structure of the EU
At every opportunity, there is talk of commonalities and the
unification, indeed re-unification of Europe and with that, the
absolutely imperative expansion of the EU to a minimum of 40 members.
In fact, however, these commonalities are absent and so is the
prerequisite for a successful expansion. In the absence of common
successes, it appears that the EU is seeking its salvation in
expansion, even if the expansion finds little agreement in the
European population. that is brought on by the expansion. Add to that
the fact that the will of the majority of the European population has
no voice in the decisions of the EU organs of governance. Is the EU
just a cornucopia for skilled lobbyists and a high level employment
agency?
This is especially true of the decision to accept Turkey as a full member.
In other words, the oft-mentioned Å`European Spirit is moribund. But
only something like it can create a self-conscious Europe which will
play a decisive role in the world.
After the fall of the Iron Curtain, the EU did not make lasting use of
the possibilities for new and independent connections with Russia, and
thus supported the return of the Russian mindset to its own
geopolitical claims. Russia sees expansion of the EU as part of the US
encirclement policy, of which Ukraine and Georgia are especially
blatant examples.
The independent policy of French president Sarkozy is a vivid example
of national interests. Sarkozy is thinking French and not European,
when he speaks of the Mediterranean Union and when he promotes French
military alliances or treaties over nuclear cooperation with countries
of the Mediterranean region.
The new members from Eastern Europe see their foreign policy support
in the USA and align their foreign policy with US wishes.
Great Britain sails in the wake of the USA.
Expansion ' together with globalization ' has brought heightened
pressure on the majority of the European population to produce, often
combined with lower income to the point of financial starvation. Jobs
are lost, foreign capital is decisive in European industry (China,
Libya and other Arabic countries). For a large part of the European
population, the EU now offers a very modest living standard.
The Å`Lisbon Goal is a true declaration of bankruptcy. The EU was
supposed to be the most innovative and economically significant area
of the world. Now that the impossibility of this plan is obvious, the
goal is being postponed by 10 years and summarily re-named Strategy
2020.
Though the EU still comes up trumps through comparatively significant
economic successes in international tests of strength, disillusion has
set in this area too, through accumulation of debt across the entire
EU, especially in the PIGS ' Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain.
Dramatically rising unemployment ' caused not least by outsourcing '
intensifies this disenchantment.
The Special Case of Turkey
Between US-NATO wishes and a split of interests in member states,
Turkey was granted membership in the Council of Europe in 1999 in a
confidential paper which was not available to the public. In December
2004, 407 representatives in the EU parliament voted for negotiations
with no further delay. Only 262 voted against. On October 3, 2005,
negotiations began with the goal of full membership. (This
counterintuitive position has been held to this day with no regard for
public opinion. The granting of asylum to Turkish citizens is not seen
as a contradictory indicator.)
Despite a lack of progress in meeting entry requirements, Turkey
continues to receive signals of a foreseeable time for entry.
In the beginning of 2010, the Turk, Mevlüt Cavusoglu was elected chair
of the parliamentary assembly of the Council of European.
Istanbul was chosen as the cultural capital of Europe for 2010. The
festival city, Salzburg, has a sponsor from Turkey.
Critical remarks in progress reports continue to have no consequences
(e.g., Cyprus, religious freedom).
In its judgment of Turkey, the EU for instance, disregards the fact:
- - - - - - - - -
That Turkey has great deficits in human rights and therefore does not
fulfill the basic requirements for acceptance. (In contrast to these
criteria, Turkey was granted Å`sufficient fulfillment of basic
requirements.)
That special role of the army and religious authority, which is
anchored in the constitution of the (national-religious) unity
government is EU adverse and so Turkey is not and cannot become a
democracy in the Western sense.
That the public life of Turkey is determined by Islam, in other words,
by ideological basics which are the exact opposite of the Western
model of life.
That a full membership for Turkey means an entry with fulfilling the
requirements and, in consideration of the size and otherness of this
land, plainly means the final abandonment of the feeling of
togetherness and the end of the work of European integration.
That the entry of Turkey brings with it an enormous financial burden
for the EU and, aided by this financing, all the Turkish EU
contradictions, including military ambitions, are bolstered.
That the EU, in the absence of any foreign policy of its own, would
stumble in the wake of Turkish interests into Turkeys conflicts with
its neighbors.
The foreign policy of the EU is a reflection of national interests and
accordingly not in a position to counteract US hegemonic moves. It
must eventually come to the realization that, despite all criticism of
the USA. it is the only Å`player in the Western world.
European Navel-Gazing Is No World Policy
Although EU deficits become ever more visible, and negative polls and
warning voices of important personalities are not lacking, all EU
governmental organs are celebrating the accomplishments of the work of
integration with events and brochures.
The message of all these Å`events is clothed in catchphrases and
tranquilizer words. Take for example the following vocabulary of
deception and clouding of the mind:
Abrahamic religions: the patriarch Abraham connects all monotheistic
religions. (Why are the obvious differences in the way the religions
are lived and practiced not addressed? A common ancestral father does
not help us live together. Common rules of play will do that.)
Islam is a peace-loving religion; you must distinguish between Islam
and Islamism; there is no unified Islam; the head scarf is an ordinary
article of clothing; there are prejudices against Islam, even
Islamophobia.
Turkey is a functioning democracy; Turkey is a secular state; Erdogan
and his party are Å`moderately Islamist. This is per se a contradiction
in terms.
Negotiations open to results; in a plebiscite the people will have the
last word. (President Fischer rightly noted that a plebiscite requires
a law which can only be determined after completion of negotiations
and ratification by parliament. Thus, the promise of a plebiscite
proves to be a placebo, since no political force to speak of can nor
will come through for such an illogical procedure ex post facto.)
During the last Austrian presidency, there was even the slogan: Å`The
EU ought to be fun!
Like the sorcerers apprentice, the EU is moving rapidly toward its
self-immolation. Criticism is declared to be prejudice and the concept
of prejudice is deformed to be an advantage.
It does not escape the notice of the critically thinking citizen that
all these statements from the media, the authorities and from the EU
describe a fairy tale world, from which there will someday be a rude
awakening.
The Islamization of Our Lives
The Islamization of Europe (and the whole world) is not only the
result of Muslim immigration since WW II, but has been a declared goal
of Islam since the time of Mohammed. Right from the beginning, war in
Islam has been a part of spreading the faith, and is therefore Å`just.
The Crusades were all concerned with the re-taking of Palestine and
other Christian areas from the Muslims and were in no way
imperialistic projects. They were reactions to Muslim attacks. Without
the Crusades, Europe would have been subjugated by Islam centuries
ago.
The de-hellenization of Asia Minor began with the appearance of the
Turks (Seljuks) in the Byzantine Empire (1071). The dream of Ottoman
(Turkish) world empire led to the conquest of Constantinople and the
Balkans came to a close over about three centuries with the sieges of
Vienna in 1529 and 1683 and the succeeding Å`Turkish wars.
This dream of a Turkish world empire has become reality again at this
time through acceptance into the EU ' without fulfilling a single
condition.
The technological and consequent military superiority of Christian
countries beginning in the 16th century ultimately led a counterweight
to the Muslim military
Finally, the Islamic world fell behind and was even occupied by
Christian countries. This enabled the Christian countries to function
as protective powers for Christian minorities living in Muslim
countries.
Weakened by two world wars, Europe lost its leadership role in the
world. Today, non-European countries determine what happens.
Consequently, European values and culture exist merely as one variant
in a worldwide offering. European culture and values are already
judged negatively in many places. There is no longer any question of
being a role model.
A particular milestone in this development is the first oil crisis of
the 1970s. Europes dependence on oil led to the Europe-Arabic Dialogue
(Eurabia). This is an exchange of oil for good will toward
Arabic-Islamic interests and/or values. That gave rise to Å`the Islam
prohibition.
The fact is that Muslim countries treat Western countries with
unaccustomed disrespect, of which the conflict of Switzerland with
Libya is a clear example. The indifference of Somali authorities to
the piracy of mercantile shipping and the attitude of Iran in the
question of nuclear armament are two further examples.
Completely unperturbed by Western criticism, Iran supports Hizbullah
with modern weapons. Without any objection, the West learns of the
Islamization of Kosovo, Bosnia-Herzegovina and other regions by means
of Saudi Arabian funds.
The January 2010 EU parliament resolution concerning incidents against
Christians in Egypt and Malaysia as well as the proposed resolution of
the Austrian parliament in July, 2008 on the worldwide discrimination,
repression and persecution of Christians underline the precarious
situation of Christians (non-Muslims) in Muslim countries. There were
no repercussions. We are contemporary witnesses to the greatest
persecution of Christians of all times. Persecution of Christians is
not some reminiscence from the age of Rome.
The Islam Prohibition can be traced at the international as well as
the national level. It consists of a ban on putting critical questions
to Islam. In the dialogue, each and every discussion is ended by the
discussion-stopping arguments Å`general suspicion and Å`racism. The
order of the day is twisting the facts by Muslim authorities and
compliant Western Å`helpers.
An especially striking example is the portrayal of Islam as the
Å`religion of peace, even though Islam was conceived as an immutably
battle-ready ideology. (Indeed, it should be noted that peace in
Islamic terms means the state of the world after its total
Islamization. To that extent, the designation Å`religion of peace is no
contradiction even if Islam ' legitimately by its own standards '
employs violence. The non-Muslim has the choice of conversion,
emigration, or death.)
The UN human rights declaration is commemorated every year on Human
Rights Day, the 10th of December. Thus, the allegedly universal
validity of this socio-political accomplishment is recalled. Not
commemorated is the fact that, for Muslims, the 1990 Cairo Declaration
of Human Rights in Islam applies ' sharia, Islamic law.
The Å`Western idea is that human rights coincide with the concept of
individual freedom. That includes religious freedom, understood as the
freedom of the individual to choose his religious perspective, or to
reject it.
The Islamic idea is that religious freedom is the unrestricted right
of Islam to expand as a collective (umma) and displace all other
religions and lifestyles. Islam is an alliance of religion and
politics!
In this sense, the following points should be seen as closely
connected and as steps to the Islamization of Europe (the world).
Since the 1970s ' approximately contemporary with the first oil crisis
' some Islamic states have been attempting to submit human rights to
moral relativism by referencing cultural and religious traditions.
In 1990, Pakistan proposed a ban on defamation of Islam to the UN
Human rights Council. The proposal was expanded to Å`religions and also
accepted as well by the UN General Assembly.
As a consequence, the Å`Viennese World Conference on Human Rights in
1963 struck a compromise. Since that time, Å`various historic, cultural
and religious conditions are recognized.
In the human rights year 1998, at the proposal of Iran, the UN General
Assembly declared 2001 the Å`UN year of dialogue between civilizations
and thereby introduced the process of recognizing multiplicity as
enrichment in a globalized world (creative diversity). Austria was
host of one of the meetings in 2001.
On December 10, 2007, the speaker of the Organization of the Islamic
Conference declared in the UN human rights council that the Cairo
Human Rights Declaration of 1990 supplements the UN human rights
declaration of 1948 since it is concerned with the cultural and
religious features of Muslim countries. (Thereby, Islamic law was de
facto recognized, even though it contradicts Western ideas of rights.)
The speaker of the OIC declared simultaneously that discussions of
sharia in the framework of the UN human rights council are an insult
to Islam and therefore impermissible.
Following up on this suggestion, the UN human rights council decided
in June, 2008, that religious discussions could be led only by
academics.
Therefore, recognition of special features, respect and tolerance is
the basis for relations between civilizations. That is the opposite of
integration.
The EU agency for basic rights tracks racism and xenophobia. Combating
Islamophobia is a primary concern. Christophobia is not mentioned,
although the repression and persecution of Christians have grown to
the point where they are impossible to miss.
In 2005, Europeans made Islamophobia equal to anti-Semitism and thus
made it a crime.
In the Council of Europe resolution 1605 of April 15, 2008, a
distinction is made between Islam and Islamic fundamentalism, whereby
discussion of Islam and its ideology of war becomes taboo.
The president of the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe,
the Turk Mevlut Cavusoglu, said in his inaugural address in January
2010 that intercultural and inter-religious dialogue must be
strengthened. All kinds of racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism and all
other kinds of similar phobias which lead to discrimination and
intolerance must be stamped out. Of hostility to Christians, which we
experience daily, there was not a word.
This stress on Islamophobia is especially questionable since there is
no legal definition and the following standards presumably invoke the
Islam Prohibition:
The Council of Europes Framework Resolution 2008/913/JI of November
28, 2008 on legally enforced combating of particular forms and
expressions of racism and xenophobia provides, in article 1 that the
following intentional acts be made punishable by law (official crime)
Å`public incitement to violence or hate against a person or group of
persons or member of that group defined according to race, skin color,
religion, ancestry, national or ethnic origin
As a direct result of the Islam Prohibition, we can explain why, at
the demand of the Muslims, or in eager anticipation of obeying them,
the majority society is considerate of alien lifestyles and ideas and
thus fully accepts segregation. (The practice of sharia in British
jurisprudence can be seen as abandonment of self, a submission to
Islam):
No pork or alcohol
Gender separation in school and in public. Knowledge of
psychoanalysis, e.g., of Sigmund Freud is not considered.
Women may only appear in public in the company of their husbands or
only with a head covering.
Crosses removed from schools and hotel rooms.
Refusal to salute the flag in the army and extensive special treatment
of Muslim recruits.
Consideration for the effects of the month of fasting.
Consideration for the Islamic prohibition against interest (Islamic
banking). Banking may not charge interest nor deal in businesses that
are repugnant to Islam (alcohol, pork, gambling, etc.) All these are
signs of a progressive Islamization of all aspects of life. In truth,
a systematic and unconditional discrimination against all things not
Muslim!
Almost exclusively, the non-Muslims answer to this threatening
situation is dialogue. Since Vatican II, even the Vatican believes in
dialogue.
In countless interrreligious/intercultural dialogues, Christianity and
the West are equated and this prevents the interpretive power of our
laws from being placed beyond all doubt. Anyone who feels connected to
neither Christianity nor Islam (syncretists, agnostics, atheists)
justifiably asks: Å`Who is representing me in all the interreligious
dialogues and why is my philosophy of life and the separation of
religion and state of less value than religious belief, especially
Islamic?
This applies, for instance, to the president. He describes himself as
an agnostic. Also never heard from are those who are in contact with
Muslims in the course of their everyday lives and must experience the
difficulties of integration, in the police, emergency services,
hospitals and schools.
In many places, Islamic ideas are fully accommodated, from Muslim work
clothes in the municipality of Vienna to the complete prohibition on
discussing Muslim moral concepts. Neither the ORF, the theater nor the
churches ask critical questions. They are content with Å`playful
encounters like hiking or soccer.
The exchange of thoughts is without intellectual depth and corresponds
to a wine-tasting or the exchange of recipes. Some representatives of
the church even see Islam as an ally against secularization.
With respect to the proclamation Å`demand and encouragement, the
measures taken by the administration to further integration are
content with the encouragement. By this means, the parallel society is
anchored still more firmly. Even the requirement to learn German is
weakened by a multitude of foreign language translations and
translation services. So learning German is actually no longer
necessary in many places in Austria.
The result of this attitude is the Muslim parallel society which is
not integrated nor willing to integrate and frequently has no respect
for the indigenous population. There is hatred for the West. The law
of the state has no effect in the parallel society. The police have no
reach. Justice is determined by local ' mostly Muslim ' patterns.
Consider too, that a society is acting Å`positively in terms of racism,
when it does not insist upon its own standards from immigrants and
closes one eye instead of helping.
What Does All This Mean for Coexistence With the Muslims?
Can western lifestyle (secular individualism with free will, voluntary
religious practice and individual identity) even persist against
Islamic and oriental-patriarchal lifestyles (group identity and
nationalism)?
The basic elements of this Western lifestyle are being seriously
challenged by Islam, even though these elements are the result of a
long, at times painful, hard fought process of consciousness raising
and are regarded by Western civilization as an achievement. These are,
above all
Separation of religion and state
Religious freedom, freedom of expression even to its extreme
Religion and sexuality are private affairs
Art is allowed anything
Gender equality
Islam was recognized as a religion in Austria with the Islam Law of
1912. The requirement for recognition was Å`compatibility with the laws
of the state. Despite all warnings, this has not been checked for a
long time. Persecution of Christians in non-Western countries, of
secular immigrants, and Islamic writings (fatwas) inimical to the West
could not bring an end to this turning of a blind eye.
The government is required to make clear its interpretive authority
vs. Islam and to do away with Islams deviations from the laws on
religious freedom. Put simply, the authorities must actualize the
Å`explanatory remarks and the Å`report of the special commission
concerning the law of 1912. This task has been waiting for nearly 100
years!
It is unacceptable that Islamic values have not been dealt with in the
ordinary course of parliamentary discussions but has been demanded
Å`from outside.
The authorities must also clarify whether the concept Å`infidel, by
which Islam designates all non-Muslims as second-class people, is, in
the sense of the above-mentioned framework resolution Å`public
incitement to violence or hate against a group or member of a group of
persons defined as a religion according to the criteria.
The Structure of Turkey
Turkey is a regional power with a targeted domestic and foreign
policy, by means of which it confronts a split EU foreign policy with
great pertinacity. It pursues its own interest exclusively, often
blatantly in contradiction to EU interests. Completely in tune with
this foreign policy opportunism is the direction of its foreign policy
with regard to the EU/Europe, but also the Islamic and central Asian
area.
There is also no shortage of military interventions to effect its
foreign policy goals. There have been ca. 3,000 Turkish soldiers
stationed on Cyprus since 1974, although the grounds for intervention
(overthrow of the Greek military regime) have been gone for years.
Turkey also intervenes everywhere where it wants to assert its
interests, not militarily, but with substantial political and economic
pressure.
That includes diplomatic actions in the USA and the EU in regard to
the Armenian genocide and the Kurdish separatist movement PKK. Still
fresh in memory is the Turkish intervention against the installation
of the Danish president as NATO general secretary. Freedom is not
important to Turkey; Muslim sensibilities are. Nonetheless, it was
rewarded for this extortion by a strengthening of US good will.
Turkeys anti-Western positions are, of themselves, no surprise. In the
OIC, Turkey appoints the general secretary and therefore functions as
the important spokesman in the controversy between Islam and the West.
That was true in the clash over the Mohammed cartoons and applies
presently to the OICs efforts to subordinate the UN human rights
declaration to sharia. By this means, criticism of the Islamic
perception of human rights is to be stopped. Turkey has long since
visibly returned to the Islamic camp. There is no question of a bridge
between cultures. Atatürk and his secular orientation are nothing any
more than lip service,
Turkey has a constitution adverse to the EU: political life and
religious practice are under the purview of the military, even though
the Islamic regime is working to reduce this influence. Religious
practice and religious adherence are not a private matter as they are
in the Western world.
The religious authority, Diyanet, regulates religious life for Sunni
Islam, the majority faith. Other sects are disadvantaged. The once
flourishing Christian community has shrunk to numerical
insignificance. Even 20 million (Islamic?) Alewites are hampered in
their religious practice by the Sunni majority.
Diyanet names the imams and sends them into countries with Turkish or
Turkish-descended populations, for example, Germany and Austria. In
both countries, Diyanet maintains branch offices like a colonial
administration, to encourage the religious and national connections to
Turkey ' but not integration. From this grows a state within a state
with the purpose of land acquisition. In Austria, this branch is
called ATIB = Ayrupa-Türk Islam Birligi = Turkish Islamic Union for
Cultural Cooperation (literally, European-Turkish Islamic Unification
with no reference to cultural cooperation).
The Turkish laicité was decreed from above. It did not grow from the
bottom up as in the West. The comparison with France is misleading.
The Turkish state is not religion-neutral like France. On the
contrary, it advantages Sunni Islam and discriminates against all
other religions and beliefs.
The founder of the Turkish republic, Kemal Atatürk, introduced
separation of religion ad state ca. 80 years ago. The military was
established as the guardian of this lay establishment, which led to
the more recent past and then to the ban on parties.
Despite all efforts at control, Å`Kemalism, with its attempt to implant
laicism in the population, has failed. To this day, there are two
antagonistic groups in the population: the rural, religious people,
including those who migrated to the cities and the secularly oriented
city dwellers, whose numbers are dwindling.
Practically speaking, Turkey is in a culture war. Head-covering
remains an ideologically highly explosive question. The ban on action
for the ruling party the president and many other politicians because
of misinterpretation of laicism found no majority with the
constitutional judges.
Misunderstanding the facts, the EU took the side of an Islamic state
and applauded the process. One resource for this cultural conflict is
the influx of capital from Muslim sources. Anyone who practices Islam
can count on financial support. This applies not only to residence,
work, school and groceries, but also to entrepreneurs in finance and
contracting.
The Å`moderate Islamist government is taking Turkey step-by-step to an
Islamic theocracy and in managing this is completing the necessary
ideological re-orientation.
The Turkish constitution foresees not only the special role of the
military and religious authorities but also the ethnic-religious
centralized state. Accordingly, Turkeys constitution recognizes no
ethnic minorities, including, for instance, 12 million Kurds.
A striking nationalism is quickening in Turkey and protected by
criminal laws (no insulting of Turkey, no criticism of official
positions on Armenians, Cyprus). Testifying to this nationalism are
the ubiquitous Atatürk posters and statues together with the
country-wide motto, seen everywhere: Å`Everyone who is a Turk is
fortunate. This nationalism plus Islam explains the unwillingness and
incapacity of Turks to integrate in Europe (Turkish organizations
declared during the Å`Islam conference of former interior minister
Schäuble that they did not adhere to German values).
A horrifying demonstration of this religio-nationalistic attitude is
the murder of three fellow employees in a bible print shop in Malatya
in 2007. The perpetrators justified themselves with their battle
against enemies of the faith and of the Turkish nation. SPD EU
representative, Turkish-born Vural ?-ger, poured oil on the fire by
placing the blame on the EU because of its push for reform in Turkish
law.
An accommodation of the Turkish constitution to the EU would mean
relinquishing these two pillars and thus the end of Atatürks Turkey.
On the other hand, it is obvious that a similar process in the
Å`negotiations, would lead the EU to accept a military dictatorship or
a theocracy into its ranks. In either case, it will become a plaything
of Turkish politics. Reconciliation policy, which aims at an
improvement in relations with neighbors, is contained within tight
boundaries. The Armenian-Turkish thaw was followed quickly by a cold
front.
Unperturbed by all these contradictions, Turkey steps forth with
absolutely incomprehensible declarations and demands and talks about
an entry date of 2013-15 in the following ways:
We have fulfilled all entry requirements and have a right to full membership.
The EU has no right to reject Turkey. Turkey reproaches the EU in the
coarsest terms as being a Christian club, but is not above
participating significantly in the OIC, an organization of exclusively
Muslim countries. There is no Christian equivalent of the OIC.
As far as the Turkish president is concerned, the Balkans extends into
Turkey, when it is a question of integrating the Balkans. He
interprets the continuing visa requirement for Bosnia as an example of
the disadvantaging of a Muslim country, compared to Serbia, for which
the requirement was lifted recently.
Even in the European council, The (proposal of a) European flag with
the cross ' modeled on the pan-European movement ' failed because of
Turkeys resistance.
Turkey accuses the EU of discrimination and complains about
admonitions. In truth, it is getting special treatment like no member
country has gotten until now. Even Croatia was treated more harshly.
Turkey is oblivious and, like an invading army, ignores the
sensitivities of the population of the EU.
Turkey is blazing its trail into the EU. It extorts agreement and
shows no willingness to fulfill the entry requirements. It is
following its usual extortionist negotiating tactics: flatter, be
insulted, threaten. It wants a Turkish Europe, as expressed clearly in
February, 2008 by the Turkish president, when he appeared in Cologne.
Serbia was invited to apply on the basis of a Brussels decision.
Turkey made its application at the time against the recommendation of
the EU.
As a result of this unfair and tenacious negotiating tactic, Turkey is
well represented in the committees and PR apparatus of the EU and is
shaping its Å`own entry requirements. Together with Spain, it is
setting the tone in the UN initiative, Å`Alliance of Civilizations. A
tactically feeble EU confronts this Turkish determination, backed by
the hegemonic interests of the USA. This explains why
All warning voices ' no matter how high-ranking or competent ' echo unheard.
The organs of the EU do not recognize that a full membership for
Turkey does not bring a single advantage for most of the European
population. Rather, exclusively substantial disadvantages.
The official organs of the EU consider their own population their
greatest enemy and avoid polls and plebiscites.
All Å`pro arguments are distortions of fact as, for example,
Turkey is the realization of the union of Islam and democracy and is a
bridge to the Islamic world.
Based on its constitution, it is not a democracy in the Western sense
of the word. It is a daily showplace of conflict between Islam and
secularity. The Islamic world sees Turkey either as a lever and a part
of its Islamization program or, because of its military pact with
Israel, as an enemy.
The geopolitical position of Turkey and its military power would
enhance the role of the EU in the Western world.
Quite the contrary: since the EU has no intervention policy of its
own, Turkey would use the EU for its own purposes. In any case, the EU
would be drawn into Turkeys conflicts with its neighbors and
destabilized along with it.
With the NABUCO gas pipeline, Turkey has a key role in providing for
Europes energy needs.
Actually, it is not clear what gas will be fed into it.
The EU promised entry and Turkey has been waiting 40 years.
There is no democratically legitimized promise. During this time,
Turkey has developed in a direction away from Europe. Indeed, in the
1970s, it expressly turned its back on the EU and/or Europe.
Without entry, the reforms in Turkey will collapse.
For European council charter member Turkey, the reforms are an
obligation overdue for 10 years and were supposed to demonstrate
Turkish self-interest. The EU has no obligation to grant a reward.
The EU needs Turkeys economic potential for further development.
Entry is not based on economic special interests, especially if market
potential can only be appreciated by means of financing by the
investor and considerable risk and corruption exist. Turkey is one of
the IMFs biggest debtors, a developing country with typical
characteristics, like greater participation in agriculture (about
30%), high unemployment (also among youth) and illegal employment, low
per capita income, child labor, insufficient patent protection and
unreliable law enforcement. On the basis of the existing customs
union, there is already close economic linkage between the EU and
Turkey. A full entry offers no additional economic possibilities.
EU ' pardon me? What is that? The EU does not exist! A sacrifice of
the intellect?
Hegemonic Claims Within the Community of Nations
Who determines the direction of things?
With no claim to thoroughness, and conscious of the remarks above, let
the following picture apply: whoever separates from European
navel-gazing and sees the world from outside, recognizes that, besides
several countries active in world politics, Islam and international
capital flow combined with providing energy and raw material are the
hand on the tiller.
The USA as leading world power is presumably at the head. Its foreign
policy is energy. China is noticeable by its securing of raw materials
in Africa and elsewhere. In this race of world powers for oil and raw
materials it is often unnoticed that the Islamic world is pursuing not
only economic, but ideological interests ' namely the Islamization of
the world.
How much this Islamization has been strengthened is seen in the
positive signals President Obama is sending the Muslim world. In his
speech at Cairo University, he extended his hand to the Muslim world.
Even the unconditional support of Israel is no longer his policy.
An international net of capital streams beyond the control of national
governments, and also international organizations spans the entire
world and makes its own decisions. Wall Street plays a prominent role.
The motto: the financial position must remain attractive and that
determines all other policies! That also applies to President Obamas
financial package.
The question arises: what the individual must and can do in this
situation, especially those who feel a loyalty to European values.
The burden of our history compels us not only to reflect on what is
past and vow Å`Never again, but also to vigilance about the spirit of
the times, the Å`mainstream. In art, in many media, in the churches, in
scholarship and in many political parties it is in style to turn a
blind eye to the subjects Islam and Turkey. Restricted freedom of
expression and fear of speaking out are dominant.
Making middle class society and Christianity ' especially the Catholic
Church ' objects of contempt, the attack on the family, the demand for
Å`gender mainstreaming and equal standing for homosexual relationships
are no substitute. Individual boundaries need to be set. Our
civilization must not be the Å`show and tell of a directionless good
time society.
As in the past, so also today, looking at the truth and speaking out
publicly is necessary. Especially because the past burdens our life to
the present day. Whoever wants to learn the truth, will learn it.
Excuses after the fact will mean nothing. Even if many people say; Å`My
mind is made up. Dont confuse me with facts.
Perhaps this time, with sufficient perseverance and courage, it will
be possible to create a counterweight to the spirit of the times and
to explain that 2 plus 2 equals 4 and not something else.
Or mankind may follow the path of greed, betrayal and indifference to
apocalyptic conditions. The worldwide economic difficulties should be
a warning that it is high time for a reversal. The Rhine maidens are
demanding the return of the Rhine gold.
Requests to speak, letters to the editor, commentaries in newspapers,
speeches and the like can, in sufficient number, can cause change.
Perhaps the above comments will be able to help with that. Whoever
fights can win; whoever does not fight has already lost. If future
generations are to have any respect for us, we must intervene for
truth and against looking the other way ' to the point of civil
disobedience.
Out future will be decided not only by the achievements of the past,
but by a conscious intervention of European society on behalf of it
own values ' especially family values and economic solidarity.
Isolation of the individual and increase of the precarious economic
conditions could give impetus to a slogan like Å`Islam is the answer.
Unalloyed individualism will bring a swift dissolution to any society.
Famous names tell us:
Indifference is the mildest form of intolerance. (Karl Jaspers)
What you inherited from your ancestors ' work to earn and possess it. (Goethe)
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary
act. (Orwell)
When tolerance becomes a one-way street, it leads to cultural suicide.
(Lieutenant Colonel Allen West)
Freedom is never more than one generation from extinction. We didnt
pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for,
protected, and handed on for them to do the same. (Ronald Reagan)
My greatest disappointment is the recognition that humanity does not
learn from experience. (Doris Lessing)
Difficulties are not overcome by not talking about them. (Berthold Brecht)
Reason becomes nonsense, blessing becomes plague. (Goethe)
Truth is the most precious thing we have. Let us deal with it
frugally. (Mark Twain)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Notes:
* Pascal Bruckner, 2008, Å`The Guilt Complex: Å`All modern thinking can
be reduced to the schematic denunciation of the West, with emphasis on
hypocrisy, violence and heinousness.The European bad conscience, based
on imperialism, fascism and racism has gripped the continent, and is
destroying its creativity, its feeling of self-worth, and is
decimating its optimism.
From: A. Papazian