Category: Middle East

  • Killer at Holocaust museum linked to BNP

    Killer at Holocaust museum linked to BNP

    Man who killed guard at Holocaust museum has links to BNP

    • White supremacist injured in Washington gunfight
    • Records show 88-year-old was at fundraising events

    Matthew Taylor and Daniel Nasaw

    F.B.I. investigators examining a bullet-riddled door at the entrance of the Holocaust Memorial Museum, where a gunman entered the building and shot and killed a security guard. NYT
    F.B.I. investigators examining a bullet-riddled door at the entrance of the Holocaust Memorial Museum, where a gunman entered the building and shot and killed a security guard. New York Times

    A white supremacist who killed a security guard at a Holocaust memorial museum in the US has links to the British National party, which gained two MEPs in last week’s European elections.

    Thousands of visitors fled the museum in Washington on Wednesday after James von Brunn opened fire, killing a security guard. In the gunfight that followed, the 88-year-old was shot, and is now in a critical condition in hospital.

    Yesterday it emerged that Von Brunn, a longtime antisemite, had attended meetings of the American Friends of the British National party (AFBNP), which was set up to raise funds from far-right activists in America.

    Mark Cotterill, who ran the US-based organisation before it folded in 2001, said: “He did attend meetings. I have just checked my database and he is down as ‘meetings only’, so he was not a major donor, although he may have put some money on the plate when it was passed round.”

    The AFBNP treasurer, Todd Blodgett, also told the Washington Post that he and Von Brunn had attended fundraising meetings in Arlington County. The BNP leader, Nick Griffin, spoke to at least two AFBNP meetings and said the money raised by the organisation made a “significant contribution to the BNP’s [2001] general election campaign”.

    Yesterday a spokesman for the party said: “You get a lot of people coming to meetings but I don’t think you can blame us for that. Even if he did go to meetings, it was nothing to do with us.”

    However, anti-racism campaigners said Von Brunn’s links to the BNP underlined its extremist agenda. “It is clear that Nick Griffin is at the centre of an international network of white supremacists,” said Dan Hodges, of Searchlight. “The BNP must explain the full extent of his organisation’s links with this antisemitic gunman.”

    The far-right party gained its first two MEPs in last week’s European elections – Griffin in the north-west and former National Front leader Andrew Brons in Yorkshire and the Humber.

    During the campaign, photographs emerged of Griffin alongside the former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard Stephen “Don” Black, who was banned from the UK by the then home secretary, Jacqui Smith. He was also criticised for defending a BNP leaflet that said black and Asian Britons should be referred to as “racial foreigners”.

    Yesterday Von Brunn was charged with murder and killing in the course of possessing a firearm at a federal facility, both capital offences under US federal law; police said hate crime charges were also possible.

    At a press conference in Washington, Cathy Lanier, the Washington police chief, said security guard Stephen Johns was shot when he opened the door of the museum for Von Brunn. Other guards opened fire, and Von Brunn slumped to the ground.

    In his car, officers found a notebook with a handwritten note saying, “You want my weapons, this is how you’ll get them. The Holocaust is a lie. Obama was created by Jews,” according to a court affidavit.

    Von Brunn’s .22-calibre rifle held 10 more bullets and investigators found more in his car and at an apartment in nearby Annapolis, Maryland, that he shared with his son and his son’s fiancee.

    Joseph Persichini, assistant director of the Washington FBI field office, said Von Brunn was known to the police as an antisemite and a white supremacist, who had a website that espoused hatred against African-Americans, Jews and others.

    “We know what Mr Von Brunn did at the Holocaust museum. Now it’s our responsibility to determine why he did it,” said Joseph Persichini, assistant director of the Washington FBI field office. “We have to ask ourselves did all these years of public display of hatred impact his actions.”

    A self-described artist, advertising man and author, Von Brunn wrote an anti-semitic treatise, Kill the Best Gentiles, decried “the browning of America” and claimed to expose a Jewish conspiracy “to destroy the White gene-pool”.

    In 1983 Von Brunn was convicted of attempting to kidnap members of the US federal reserve board. At the time, police said he had wanted to take the members hostage because of high interest rates and the nation’s economic difficulties. On the website, Von Brunn blames his six-year imprisonment on “a Jew judge” and “Negro jury”.

    Last night civil rights groups said they had been monitoring Von Brunn for decades.

    Heidi Beirich, director of research for the Southern Poverty Law Centre’s intelligence project, said: “He thinks the Jews control the Federal Reserve, the banking system, that basically all Jews are evil. He’s an extreme antisemite.”

    Source:  www.guardian.co.uk, 12 June 2009

  • Turkish military officials praise Memorandum of Understanding with Iraq

    Turkish military officials praise Memorandum of Understanding with Iraq

    ANKARA, June 12 (Xinhua) — Turkey’s General Staff Headquarters Spokesman Metin Gurak said on Friday that a memorandum of understanding (MoU) signed between Turkey and Iraq would contribute to regional peace.

    Gurak, also the head of the Communication Department of the General Staff, said at a weekly press briefing in Ankara, “the memorandum of understanding signed by the two neighboring countries that have historical, cultural and traditional ties will contribute to peace in the Middle East that is still facing negative developments.”

    Turkish Deputy Chief of General Staff Gen. Hasan Igsiz and visiting Iraqi Deputy Chief of Staff Gen. Nasier Abadi signed a memorandum of understanding on military training, technical and scientific cooperation in Ankara on Tuesday.

    Gurak said that the MoU would lay the legal groundwork for further agreements.

    “Our friendly relations based on brotherhood, mutual understanding and cooperation will further improve with this memorandum,” Gurak said.

    Ankara has sought close ties with Baghdad to enlist Iraqi support against the outlawed Kurdish Workers’ Party (PKK), whose members used northern Iraq as a base for launching attacks in Turkey.

    Turkish security forces conducted frequent operations against PKK militants in eastern and southeastern Turkey.

    The PKK took up arms in 1984 to create an ethnic homeland in southeastern Turkey. So far, some 40,000 people have been killed in the past two-decade conflicts.

    Turkey’s military forces have taken tougher actions against the PKK after the country’s legislature extended the government’s mandate to launch cross-border operations against the rebels in northern Iraq.

    Source: news.xinhuanet.com, 12.06.2009

  • Emergence of a New Middle East Alliance

    Emergence of a New Middle East Alliance

    Patrick Seale

    usWhile U.S. President Barack Obama makes history in Cairo this week, a new regional grouping is taking shape in the northern part of the Middle East which could turn out to be equally significant.

    Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria are developing trade, energy and security ties which signal a common will to shape their national destinies free from external – and especially Western — dictation. What are the factors driving this new grouping? They are numerous, and mostly specific to each country.

    Turkey – having faced disagreements and disappointments with the U.S. (over the Iraq war), with the European Union (over the slow pace of accession negotiations) and with Israel (over the Palestine question) — has developed an ambitious regional policy towards its Arab and Islamic neighbours.

    Turkey’s trade with Iran, which was a mere $1bn in 2000 rose to $10bn in 2008, and is projected to double to $20bn in the not too distant future. Turkey is planning to invest $12bn in Iran’s South Pars gas field – a policy strikingly at variance with the call by Israel and its American friends for additional sanctions against Iran. Some one million Iranian tourists visit Turkey each year, and millions more visit Iraq, especially Kerbala, the place where Hussein, grandson of the Prophet Muhammad was martyred in 680. His tomb is the Shi‘is holiest shrine.

    Syria’s strategic partnership with Iran is now 30 years old, and shows no sign of waning. The Tehran-Damascus-Hizballah axis is a geopolitical fact of life in the region and was widely seen, during in the Bush years, as the main obstacle to U.S.-Israeli hegemony. In contrast to his predecessor, Obama is now seeking to reach out to both Iran and Syria, but he is apparently not yet ready to recognise that Hizballah is an unavoidable actor on the Lebanese scene. If Obama’s ambitious Middle East peace plans are to be realised, a U.S. dialogue with both Hizballah and Hamas cannot be long delayed.

    Syria’s relations with Turkey – strained almost to the point of war in 1998 over Syria’s backing of the Kurdish PKK leader, Abdallah Ocalan — have improved dramatically. Two-way trade is flourishing. A straw in the wind was the recent Turkish decision to increase the flow of Euphrates water to Syria’s north-east, which has been badly hit by drought.

    Syrian-Iraqi relations, marked by extreme hostility during Saddam Hussein’s rule, have also greatly improved. Last April, Syria’s Prime Minister Muhammad Naji Otri signed a wide-ranging agreement in Baghdad establishing a free trade zone and providing for cooperation in energy and education. Syria is to participate in the rehabilitation of the Kirkuk to Banias oil pipeline which passes through Syrian territory. Syria’s port at Latakia is to be expanded and road links to Iraq improved, to provide transit facilities for Iraq’s import- export trade. A train carrying 800 tons of steel left the Syrian port of Tartous on 30 May for Baghdad, the first rail freight trip between the two countries in decades.

    Iran, Turkey, and Syria all have a stake in Iraq’s future. Iran would clearly like Iraq to be a friendly neighbour under continued Shi‘i leadership. It wants Iraq to revive, but never again to be so powerful as to pose a threat as deadly as Saddam Hussein’s. Memories of the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war are still too recent. Iran would probably prefer Iraq to develop into a federal state, and therefore relatively weak, rather than a strong unitary state. There are, however, no illusions in Tehran that Iraq, a major Arab country with a strong nationalist tradition, will ever consent to be an Iranian puppet.

    Whoever wins the Iranian presidential elections on 12 June – whether it is the conservative incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or his principal challenger, former premier Mir-Hussein Mousavi, a ‘moderate’ conservative backed by the main reformist parties – the main lines of Iran’s external policy are unlikely to change: close ties with Syria, Iraq and Turkey; opposition to Sunni extremism in Afghanistan and Pakistan; support for Hizballah and the Palestinians; and continued uranium enrichment.

    What sort of Iraq, its neighbours wonder, will emerge from the slaughter, destruction and chaos of the past six years? Can a new regional balance be reached now that Iraq is again able to assert its national interests?

    It seems clear that Iraq has turned a corner. Violent deaths in May, at about 165, were among the lowest for any month since the U.S.-led invasion of 2003. Security is gradually returning, although still marred by horrendous suicide bombings. The Iraqi security forces – army, police, and intelligence — are steadily improving in size and efficiency. The recent conclusion of a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the United States — with firm deadlines for the withdrawal of American armed forces — was an important expression of Iraqi sovereignty regained.

    But much remains to be done. Sunni-Shi‘i relations in Iraq remain tense, while Arab-Kurdish relations remain problematic; a hydrocarbons law has not yet been passed by parliament (although the central government has thought it best to turn a blind eye to the start of oil exports from the Kurdish region to Turkey.)

    War of Necessity, War of Choice, a recent book by Richard Haas contrasts the 1990 war to free Kuwait with the 2003 war to overthrow Saddam Hussein. The first, he argues was a war of necessity, the second a war of choice — and a very bad choice at that. It had a catastrophic impact on America’s armed forces, on its finances and its reputation. The Iraq war killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, displaced millions, shattered the country’s infrastructure, released sectarian demons, and upset the regional balance to Iran’s great benefit.

    Haas, a former senior American official, is now head of the prestigious New York–based Council on Foreign Relations. His book makes clear that Saddam’s alleged possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction was not the real motive for war. Pressure to attack Iraq came essentially from the civilian leadership at the Pentagon – especially from the then deputy defence secretary Paul Wolfowitz – and from other neo-cons in Vice-President Dick Cheney’s office, whose geopolitical fantasy was to overthrow the main Arab regimes, as well as the mullahs in Iran, and restructure the entire area, so as to make it safe for Israel.

    The neo-cons’ opportunity came because of America’s perceived need, after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, to send a big message to the Arab world about U.S. military power. Haas’ book is likely to revive the debate about the role of Israel’s friends in Washington in pushing the U.S. into war in Iraq. It will provide Barack Obama with ammunition to resist Israeli pressure to attack Iran.

    The grouping of Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria may not yet be a full-fledged alliance, but numerous common interests are pulling the four states in that direction. Not least is a concern about possible Israeli aggression – directed against Iran and Syria – and of continued uncertainty about the future course of American policy.

    Source:  www.daralhayat.com, 06 June 2009

  • The Kurdistan Regional Government Launches Oil Exports through Turkey

    The Kurdistan Regional Government Launches Oil Exports through Turkey

    The Kurdistan Regional Government Launches Oil Exports through Turkey

    Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 6 Issue: 105
    June 2, 2009
    By: Saban Kardas
    The Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) has started to export its oil to European markets, under partnerships with Turkish and other international energy companies. Following a new consensus on the distribution of revenues between the central administration in Baghdad and the KRG, oil from the Tawke and Taq Taq fields will be transported via the Kirkuk-Yumurtalik pipeline to the Turkish port of Ceyhan in the Mediterranean.

    A crucial aspect of the project has been the entry of international companies into the flourishing regional economy. The KRG has tried to attract foreign investment as a means to generate wealth and consolidate its authority within northern Iraq. Having successfully attracted foreign capital, the KRG signed independent contracts for the development of the oil fields, which caused a dispute with the central Iraqi government. In May, KRG officials announced that they received Baghdad’s approval to export oil through Iraqi pipelines (www.krg.org, May 10). Although it allowed these exports, “the central government still refuses to recognize the production-sharing agreements Kurdish authorities have signed with oil firms.” This situation created uncertainty regarding the payment of foreign investors’ revenues, but the statements from KRG officials indicate that this will not become a major issue (Today’s Zaman, June 2).

    A joint venture between the Turkish company Genel Enerji, a subsidiary of the Cukurova group, and the Canadian-Swiss Addax Petroleum will run the operations in the Taq Taq field in Erbil. Their joint investments are valued at over $350 million. The Norwegian DNO operates the Tawke field in Dohuk, where the Genel Elektrik also holds a 25 percent stake (Hurriyet Daily News, June 2). The investors designate Taq Taq as “a potentially world class oil field” (www.addaxpetroleum.com). KRG sources also claim that the oil from this region is high quality and expect the new production to “improve on the overall quality of the present Kirkuk oil mix.” Oil from the Tawke field will be directly transferred to the Kirkuk-Yumurtalik through an auxiliary pipeline. As a temporary measure, the crude from the Taq Taq will first be transported by road to the existing local pipeline networks – and from there it will connect to the Kirkuk-Yumurtalik export pipeline (www.krg.org, May 8).

    Iraq’s State Oil Marketing Company (SOMO) will market the exported oil from both fields and the revenues will be deposited in the federal account. Under the Taq Taq deal, Baghdad will receive 88 percent of the revenues, 17 percent of which will go to the KRG. Foreign investors will receive a 12 percent share. The Tawke deal reportedly has similar stipulations (www.krg.org, May 8; www.alarabiya.net, June 1).

    Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, KRG President Masoud Barzani, KRG Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani, as well as other dignitaries from the KRG and representatives of the investors participated in a ceremony held in Erbil to celebrate the export deal. Talabani described this development as a “historic step” and contended that it signified how the Iraqis can work together for the prosperity of the country. In a move to allay concerns over the legality of the contracts, Talabani said “these contracts are legal, constitutional and legitimate and they are in the interests of the Iraqi people” (www.alarabiya.net, June 1).

    Earlier, one KRG representative, Halid Salih, also emphasized that they were acting within the boundaries set by the Iraqi constitution. He noted that they entered into agreements with foreign companies according to the constitution, which granted greater autonomy to regional governments to explore oil following its revisions in 2005 (Cihan Haber Ajansi, June 1).

    Echoing similar sentiments, Nechirvan Barzani described this project as a gift of the KRG to the Iraqi people. He emphasized the KRG’s respect for the central administration, but stressed how hard they worked to secure a fair share of the region’s revenues. Barzani explained that:

        “Fortunately, we possess abundant natural resources … We must use these resources … for the benefit of all the people of Iraq… We signed contracts with international oil companies in order to bring capital, technology, know-how and experience to our region and to the entire country… We are proud to contribute to Iraq’s increased production and revenues. In reality, revenue-sharing will bind us together more than any political slogan” (www.krg.org, June 1).

    Oil exports will begin at an initial rate of around 100,000 barrels per day. 60,000 barrels will be pumped from the Tawke field, while the remaining 40,000 of the light crude will come from the Taq Taq field. Havrami said the crude exports from both fields are expected to reach 250,000 barrels per day within one year, 450,000 barrels per day by the end of 2010 and 1 million barrels per day by 2013. According to current price estimates, within four years, the annual revenues from exports might reach $20 billion (www.tempo24.com.tr, June 2).

    This agreement highlights the prospect for mutually beneficial economic cooperation, if internal political disagreements are set aside. Since the country urgently needs revenues to recover from the effects of a devastating war, the wealth brought by the oil exports might offer further incentives for political reconciliation, and help heal the feud between the KRG and the central administration. Nonetheless, it remains unclear how other political actors within the Iraqi political scene will react. Other than President Talabani, himself a Kurd, non-Kurdish members of the Shiite Arab dominated Iraqi central government did not attend the ceremony, which might indicate some enduring disagreement. Similarly, Iraq’s Oil Minister Hussein al-Shahristani also reportedly questioned the legality of the KRG’s deal.

    In any case, such joint projects have the potential to boost not only ties between the KRG and the central administration, but also Ankara’s relations with both the KRG and Baghdad. Economic collaboration serves as a major driving force to sustain the existing security cooperation partnership within the region (EDM, April 13).

    https://jamestown.org/program/the-kurdistan-regional-government-launches-oil-exports-through-turkey/
  • The Turkish Parliament Blocks Controversial Investment Plan

    The Turkish Parliament Blocks Controversial Investment Plan

    Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 6 Issue: 103

    By: Emrullah Uslu
    Border between Turkey and Syria
    Border between Turkey and Syria
    The Turkish government drafted a bill on a proposed de-mining project on the Syrian border, which sparked controversy among neo-nationalists and Islamists (EDM, May 21). The Justice and Development Party (AKP) government proposed to lease the de-mined area for 44 years to a foreign company. The area was first mined when the Turkish-Syrian border was determined in 1956. The mined area consists of 216,000 decares of land along a 510 kilometer long and 350 meter wide area of the border. It has an estimated value of around $500 million. Around 80 percent of the area is available for agricultural use, while 70 percent is suitable for irrigation. “It is believed that there are 650,000 landmines in the territory: approximately one landmine every 500 meters. The mines have claimed 3,000 lives in the past 50 years while crippling 7,000. The mines were marked on a map while they were being laid” (Hurriyet Daily News, May 29).

    The opposition parties argued that the AKP government wanted to lease the area to an Israeli company. Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan replied to the opposition concerns saying: “Money has no religion, nationality, ethnicity or color. No matter who invests, it is not Israeli’s who will work in this area, only Turkish citizens will be working there and it will help reduce unemployment within our country” (Hurriyet, May 23).

    The Republican People’s Party (CHP) leader Deniz Baykal stated that “we cannot give a 510-kilometer long border area to a foreign country. The Arabs are on one side and the Turks are on the other, while Israelis will be in the middle framing the area. Is there any meaning to this? We will not allow this to happen” (Hurriyet, May 27). Moreover, the CHP parliamentarian, Gurol Ergin, previously criticized the AKP government’s attempt to lease this land, alleging that it might create a “second Gaza” in the region (Anadolu Ajansi, May 15).

    Baykal draw a parallel between the AKP’s attempt to lease the land to a foreign company and the U.S. military requesting transit rights through Turkish territory prior to the Iraq war in 2003. Baykal said that the opposition did not permit this to happen, and now the government had to be stopped in its efforts to “lease this land to a foreigner” (Hurriyet, May 27).

    The opposition parties demanded that the Turkish armed forces (TSK) should be given the sole responsibility for the mine-clearing. Moreover, they alleged that the TSK also harbored reservations over the bill (EDM, May 21). Yet, the Turkish Chief of the General Staff Army-General Ilker Basbug, stated that NATO’s Maintenance and Supply Agency (NAMSA) must clear the mines (Vatan, May 22).

    The opposition is not alone in criticizing the AKP government: Islamist intellectuals have also voiced concern. One well respected Islamist intellectual Ahmet Tasgetiren criticized the government in the Bugun daily, asking whether it was paying tribute to Israel because Prime Minister Erdogan had harshly criticized Israel in Davos in January (Bugun, May 28). Fehmi Koru, a childhood friend of President Abdullah Gul and Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan, and another influential intellectual, also opposed the idea of leasing the land to an Israeli firm (Yeni Safak, May 28).

    It appears that some APK parliamentarians shared these concerns. For instance, Sadik Yakut said “I am against leasing this land to an Israeli company. AKP parliamentarians are very sensitive about this issue” (Milliyet, May 29). Due to the passive resistance by AKP parliamentarians opposed to the government proposal, it was subsequently withdrawn.

    The opposition and the AKP government agreed to work together to find a compromise on how to proceed to clear the mines. It was also reported that NAMSA might be permitted to visit the region to conduct de-mining operations. However, the Minister of Defense Vecdi Gonul, alleged that “the cost of clearing the mines varies at between $700 million to $3.5 billion. The government simply cannot invest that amount of money into this land. In 1992 such proposals emerged, but were abandoned due to insufficient funds” (Zaman, May 29).

    Despite attracting a significant level of foreign investment to the Kurdish region, which would reduce local unemployment, suspicions toward Israel on the part of the Islamists and neo-nationalists forced the government to withdraw the proposal. Such a coalition of Islamist and nationalists also emerged during the March 1, 2003 vote to resist the AKP government over allowing U.S. troops to conduct operations in Iraq from Turkish territory.

    The latest controversy between the opposition and AKP government once again exposed the depth of anti-Israeli sentiment among many segments of the Turkish population. Even AKP parliamentarians, who have had a tendency to vote in sympathy with Erdogan’s initiatives, refused to support the government over this sensitive issue.

    Source:  www.jamestown.org, May 29, 2009
  • Anti-immigrant and Europhobic – far right parties ride populist wave

    Anti-immigrant and Europhobic – far right parties ride populist wave

    • Ian Traynor
    • Wednesday 27 May 2009
    Members of Jobbik, a Hungarian far-right party

    Members of Jobbik, a far-right Hungarian party which has been using Auschwitz slogans in its attempt to pick up votes. Photograph: Karoly Arvai/Reuters

    In Europe’s biggest port, where nearly half the population of 600,000 is of immigrant origin, Geert Wilders appears to be knocking on an open door.

    The platinum-blond, Islam-baiting populist is soaring in opinion surveys in the Netherlands, hammering the anti-immigration message to double his ratings this year to the point where his Freedom party is challenging to be the strongest in the country, according to a leading weekly tracking poll.

    Wilders’ acolytes are also poised to enter the European parliament for the first time after elections for the EU’s sole democratically elected institution, covering 375 million people across 27 countries, take place next week.

    “He’s a clown, crazy,” said Aarjen Heida, a Rotterdam banker, of the ­iconoclast banned from Britain for “hate speech” and facing trial in the Netherlands. “But he’s dangerous. A lot of people will vote for him. People are unhappy with the way things are going here and often that has to do with foreigners.”

    Hans Oole, a retired Rotterdam food engineer, insisted he would not vote for Wilders next week. “I don’t like the way he says things. But sometimes he’s right. Most Dutch people are really afraid of Islam and it is coming all over.”

    According to city statistics, ethnic Dutch residents will be a minority in Rotterdam within a few years. At present just over one third of children under 14 are ethnically Dutch. Wilders, who likens Islam to fascism and the Qur’an to Mein Kampf, exploits such figures to argue that the Netherlands is being swamped by immigration. He also hates the EU, pledging to try to abolish the European parliament when his party ­colleagues take their seats in July. He hopes to win five of the 25 Dutch seats.

    Wilders’ success represents, in part, a souring of traditional Dutch enthusiasm for the EU. It also appears symptomatic of a broader insurrectionary mood across Europe that is expected to favour extremists, mavericks and populists in the voting taking place over four days from next Thursday. Overt racism and the calculated use of Nazi language are featuring in what is otherwise a lacklustre campaign.

    In Austria, the hard-right Freedom party of Heinz-Christian Strache, tipped to take up to 20% of the vote, is pandering openly to antisemitism. “A veto of Turkey and Israel joining the EU,” declare the party posters despite the fact that Israel, unlike Turkey, is not negotiating to join.

    Last week in the Czech Republic, state television broadcast a campaign slot from the small, fascist National party calling the large Roma community “parasites” and echoing Nazi formulation of the Holocaust policy from 1942 by demanding “a final solution of the Gypsy question”.

    The party is not expected to get into the European parliament, but in ­Hungary the far-right Jobbik, which boasts black-shirted paramilitaries and maintains relations with the British National party, has been using Auschwitz slogans and running a lurid anti-Gypsy campaign.

    It, like the BNP, could make an electoral breakthrough and win a seat in the parliament which is sited alternately and at great cost in Strasbourg and Brussels.

    If the far right is making inroads, the hard left, too, may benefit from the disenchantment with mainstream parties, notably in two of the core EU countries, Germany and France.

    The new anti-capitalist party of a postman Trotskyist, Olivier Besancenot, is predicted to win around 10% of the vote in France, while the New Left in Germany – former East German communists allied with West German social democratic defectors – could do likewise. Both parties’ gains will hurt the mainstream social democrats.

    The chances of the Europhobic extremists entering the parliament are strengthened by the wretched turnout expected next week.

    “The low turnout means that those who do vote have very strong opinions. That will bring in more extremist politicians,” said Sara Hagemann, a Danish analyst at the European Policy Centre in Brussels. “You’ll see a lot of protest voters in Europe and a lot of apathy towards political elites.”

    The lack of interest in the election, or protesting by abstaining, could spell a crisis of legitimacy for the parliament and of credibility for the EU more broadly.

    It is virtually certain that voters will stay away in record numbers, making participation the lowest since voting for the parliament started 30 years ago.

    A Eurobarometer poll predicts a turnout of 34%, more than 10 points down on 2004, but that may prove to be optimistic since the pollsters have consistently overestimated participation rates.

    A poll-tracking study being run by the London School of Economics and ­Trinity College Dublin predicts a turnout of around 30%, meaning that more than two out of three voters across the EU will boycott the ballot.

    “The risk of abstention is that it allows Eurosceptics and extremists to take over our debate and our future,” José Manuel Barroso, the European commission president, warned recently.

    Mobilising voters is made more difficult by the fact that the election does not decide a government, nor are the 736 MEPs elected able to initiate European laws, reinforcing the popular notion that the parliament is a remote, irrelevant talking shop.

    In fact, voter turnout is in inverse proportion to the parliament’s growing powers. Turnout has fallen in each of the seven elections since 1979, while every treaty reshaping the way the EU is run has increased the parliament’s clout. It now has a say in shaping around 75% of European law.

    From next year, if the Lisbon treaty is implemented following a second referendum in Ireland in October, it will be empowered to “co-decide” almost all European laws, making the parliament one of the big winners of the Lisbon streamlining reforms.

    In what already looks like a doomed attempt to combat indifference and drum up interest in the ballot, the parliament itself – as opposed to the competing parties – has hired a German PR firm and spent some €18m (£15.6m) of European taxpayers’ money trying to sell the election.

    “Come on! It’s just a few minutes, maybe you can combine [voting] with a walk in the park or a drink in a cafe. Not much effort to tell Europe what you want,” pleads the parliament propaganda.

    It is falling on closed ears. The lavish spending only compounds the ­parliament’s problems, reinforcing the conviction that MEPs are either wasting taxpayers’ money or pocketing it.

    With around 9,000 candidates running for the 736 seats and with each national ballot turning on the idiosyncrasies of 27 vastly different countries, variations in voting behaviour will be marked.

    In Germany, for example, the poll will be analysed closely for what it portends for the general election in September, Europe’s most important political contest this year.

    In France, it is likely to be seen as a referendum on two years of President Nicolas Sarkozy, while in Italy, the election will be scrutinised to see if Silvio Berlusconi’s marital breakdown is damaging his popularity.

    Despite the national variations, trans-national trends are discernible as voters look like venting their anger on incumbents because of the economic crisis, and growing unemployment.

    The French, Italian, and Polish governments may be the big exceptions to this trend. But Euroscepticism, previously a British and, to a lesser extent, a Scandinavian characteristic, is spreading even into the historical heartland of the EU, such as the Netherlands.

    “The Dutch have become very cantankerous. It’s very sad,” said a senior EU official. “They’ve gone from being the most pro-European country to one of the most anti-European.”

    While Wilders pledges to destroy the EU “from within”, the hard-left Socialist party’s pitch is for “more Netherlands, less Brussels”. And among the centrist parties in government in the Netherlands, there is little positive being said about Brussels or the EU. “Even among the non-extreme parties, scepticism has crept in,” said Hagemann.

    Leading this new movement of Eurosceptics and seeking to establish it as a more powerful transnational political force in Europe are David Cameron’s Conservatives, who are pledged to end two decades of alliance with the mainstream European centre-right (the European People’s party) and form a new caucus of European Conservatives.

    The entry of several dozen extremists and populists will make the parliament a more raucous, bad-tempered place, but will not substantively affect the balance of power between Christian Democrats, social democrats and liberals.

    But Cameron’s move should have more impact. He has been helped by the entry of central European countries in 2004. He will depend on rightwingers from Poland and the Czech Republic and a few other countries to set up the new grouping, which will signify the biggest change in the new five-year parliament.

    The LSE-Trinity College study predicts more than 60 seats from up to nine countries for the new Conservative caucus, making it the fourth biggest in the parliament. It will be loud in its condemnation of the Lisbon treaty and will campaign for the “repatriation” of powers from Brussels to national capitals.

    “We will be very united in limiting European power,” said Konrad Szymanski, a Polish MEP from the rightwing Law and Justice party which will supply the second biggest bloc of MEPs after the British.

    The election will usher in a busy few months at the top of European politics – Barroso’s expected renomination as head of a new commission a fortnight later at a European summit; a German election; an Irish referendum; and probably a contest for the two plum posts of first European president and foreign minister.

    But the low turnout and predicted gains for anti-Europeans will get this burst of high-powered politicking off to a bad start.

    Source: www.guardian.co.uk, 27 May 2009