Tag: European Parliament

  • ‘Iran is our friend,’ says Turkish PM Recep Tayyip Erdogan

    ‘Iran is our friend,’ says Turkish PM Recep Tayyip Erdogan

    • We have no difficulty with Ahmadinejad – Erdogan
    • Warning to Europe not to ignore Turkey’s strengths

    A13With its stunning vistas and former Ottoman palaces, the banks of the Bosphorus – the strategic waterway that cuts Istanbul in half and divides Europe from Asia – may be the perfect place to distinguish friend from foe and establish where your country’s interests lie.

    And sitting in his grandiose headquarters beside the strait, long the symbol of Turkey‘s supposed role as bridge between east and west, Recep Tayyip Erdogan had little doubt about who was a friend and who wasn’t.

    Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran‘s radical president whose fiery rhetoric has made him a bête noire of the west? “There is no doubt he is our friend,” said Erdogan, Turkey’s prime minister for the last six years. “As a friend so far we have very good relations and have had no difficulty at all.”

    What about Nicolas Sarkozy, president of France, who has led European opposition to Turkey’s bid to join the EU and, coincidentally, adopted a belligerent tone towards Iran’s nuclear programme? Not a friend?

    “Among leaders in Europe there are those who have prejudices against Turkey, like France and Germany. Previously under Mr Chirac, we had excellent relations [with France] and he was very positive towards Turkey. But during the time of Mr Sarkozy, this is not the case. It is an unfair attitude. The European Union is violating its own rules.

    “Being in the European Union we would be building bridges between the 1.5bn people of Muslim world to the non-Muslim world. They have to see this. If they ignore it, it brings weakness to the EU.”

    Friendly towards a religious theocratic Iran, covetous and increasingly resentful of a secular but maddeningly dismissive Europe: it seems the perfect summary of Turkey’s east-west dichotomy.

    Erdogan’s partiality towards Ahmadinejad may surprise some in the west who see Turkey as a western-oriented democracy firmly grounded inside Nato. It has been a member of the alliance since 1952. It will be less surprising to Erdogan’s secular domestic critics, who believe the prime minister’s heart lies in the east and have long suspected his Islamist-rooted Justice and Development party (AKP) government of plotting to transform Turkey into a religious state resembling Iran.

    Erdogan vigorously denies the latter charge, but to his critics he and Ahmadinejad are birds of a feather: devout religious conservatives from humble backgrounds who court popular support by talking the language of the street. After Ahmadinejad’s disputed presidential election in June, Erdogan and his ally, the Turkish president, Abdullah Gul, were among the first foreign leaders to make congratulatory phone calls, ignoring the mass demonstrations and concerns of western leaders over the result’s legitimacy.

    Talking to the Guardian, Erdogan called the move a “necessity of bilateral relations”. “Mr Ahmadinejad was declared to be the winner, not officially, but with a large vote difference, and since he is someone we have met before, we called to congratulate him,” he said.

    “Later it was officially declared that he was elected, he got a vote of confidence and we pay special attention to something like this. It is a basic principle of our foreign policy.”

    The gesture will be remembered when Erdogan arrives in Tehran this week for talks with Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, that will focus on commercial ties, including Turkey’s need for Iranian natural gas. Ahmadinejad has voiced his admiration for Erdogan, praising Turkey’s recent decision to ban Israel from a planned Nato manoeuvre in protest at last winter’s bombardment of Gaza.

    Since the election, Iran has witnessed a fierce crackdown on opposition figures that has resulted in activists, students and journalists being imprisoned and publicly tried. Detainees have died in prison, and there have been allegations of torture and rape. Some of those alleging mistreatment have sought refuge in Turkey.

    But Erdogan said he would not raise the post-election crackdown with his hosts, saying it would represent “interference” in Iranian domestic affairs.

    He poured cold water on western accusations that Iran is seeking a nuclear weapon, saying: “Iran does not accept it is building a weapon. They are working on nuclear power for the purposes of energy only.”

    Erdogan has overseen a dramatic improvement in the previously frigid relations between Turkey and Iran, which was viewed with suspicion by the pro-secularist high command of the powerful Turkish military. Trade between the two countries last year was worth an estimated £5.5bn as Iran has developed into a major market for Turkish exports.

    Erdogan’s views will interest US foreign policy makers, who have long seen his AKP government as a model of a pro-western “moderate Islam” that could be adopted in other Muslim countries. They will also find an audience with President Barack Obama, who signalled Turkey’s strategic importance in a visit last April and has invited the prime minister to visit Washington. They are unlikely to impress Israel, which has warned that Erdogan’s criticisms risk harming Turkey’s relations with the US.

    Erdogan dismissed the notion, saying: “I don’t think there is any possibility of that. America’s policy in this region is not dictated by Israel.”

    He insisted that the Turkey-Israel strategic alliance – which some AKP insiders have said privately is over – remains alive but chided the Israeli foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, who he said had threatened to use nuclear weapons against Gaza.

    The Guardian

  • Letter to President Obama: The ISLAMIC Republic of Turkey

    Letter to President Obama: The ISLAMIC Republic of Turkey

    20 October 2009

    The Honorable Barack H. Obama
    President of the United States
    The White House
    1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
    Washington, DC 20500
    USA

    Dear Mr. President:

    I wrote to you on 20 January 2009, the day of your inauguration as president, about the dire conditions prevailing in the Republic of Turkey. (1) Today I stand by every word that I then wrote. Even more so, since conditions are now much worse. I suggest you reread this letter before you again meet with any Turkish politician. Accordingly, I have listed below the access internet addresses.

    The problem, as we both know, is the nature of the increasingly hard-line Islamic ruling party, the AKP. On 29 October 2009 you will have another opportunity to meet with its leader, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. This is a date of terrifying irony. Eighty-six years ago, to the day, Turkey was proclaimed a republic. Thus centuries of backwardness by the sharia Ottoman Empire, the nightmare of dark-mindedness, the suppression of women, the illiteracy and ignorance of the population, all these civil transgressions were finally consigned to the garbage dump of history. Hope had arrived at last. The rescue mission of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk had been successful and would proceed. (Note: Incredibly, Erdoğan and his minions label these grand achievements as “traumatic.”) A few hours before the republic was proclaimed, Mustafa Kemal remarked to a French journalist, “Can one name a single nation that has not turned toward the West in its quest for civilization?”

    Now, eighty-six years later, one can finally answer Mustafa Kemal. Thanks to Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the USA, your CIA, the European Union, and plenty of dollars filling the gaping pockets of politicians, hack journalists, outright traitors and, as Mustafa Kemal would say, selected “ignoramuses” there IS one such nation: Mustafa Kemal’s Turkey, today’s Turkey. Indeed, today’s Turkey has turned its back on the West. But its quest? The inept government seems incapable of answering that question. Beyond personal corruption, fantastic plundering, fabulous enrichment, suppression of women, extrajudicial imprisonments, destruction of the natural environment, and general lawlessness, no plan has emerged during its seven-year term in office. The 15 October 2009 article, “How Turkey Was Lost”, in the Jerusalem Post says it all.(2)

    And you have helped too, Mr President. Were you surprised by Erdoğan’s antics in Davos? By his attempt to storm your Secret Service barricade outside the hotel in New York City? By his sudden ranting about Israel? Mr President, you shouldn’t be, for this is the quality of the man. You proceed with the likes of him and his people at your, and our, peril. In my earlier letter to you I wrote: “Do not be deceived Mr. President, this government neither serves you, nor the Turkish people. In the name of so-called democracy, it serves itself.” Nothing more need be said.

    Today, on all counts, Turkey and the people of Turkey have failed. They have failed Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. They have failed themselves. Else how could they so submissively tolerate a government formed by the likes of Erdoğan and his AKP. Mr President, on 29 October 2009, you will see the personification of this profound, tragic failure in the normally scowling face of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, painfully contorted into his “White House smile!”

    Mr President, quite simply, Turkey has become an Islamic fascist state. Cameras and listening devices abound. People are identified for arrest by the government-controlled press. Even I, Mr President, have been fingered by newspaper hack widely known to be a mouthpiece for the president of the republic.(3)  Mr President, this lawless government has trashed the constitution. Jails are loaded with patriots—journalists, scientists, physicians, writers, retired military officers, businessmen—all opposed to the destruction of the legacy of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. Mr President, There is no significant difference between the doings of this government and what went on in Germany in the early Thirties, or in Pinochet’s Chile in the Seventies. None!

    Lawless politicians! Lawless judges! Lawless prosecutors! Lawless police! Lawless! Lawless! Lawless…

    On 29 October 2009, the 86th anniversary of the founding of Republic of Turkey, you, Mr President, will meet with the Turkish prime minister. Perhaps this will be the day you both announce the birthday of the Islamic Republic of Turkey. Given what has happened to Turkey at the hands of the United States since Atatürk died, nothing would surprise me. And nothing would please Erdoğan more. And you, Mr President, should know.

    Sincerely yours,

    James (Cem) Ryan, Ph.D.

    Istanbul, Turkey

    (1) Letter to President Obama (20 January 2009):

    (2) “How Turkey was lost”, Caroline Glick, 15 Oct. 2009.The Jerusalem Post

    (3) “İki ‘garip’ Amerikalı”, (Two Weird Americans), Yeni Şafak, 29 April 2009

    “By complete independence, we mean of course complete economic, financial, juridical, military, cultural independence and freedom in all matters. Being deprived of independence in any of these is equivalent to the nation and country being deprived of all its independence”

    Mustafa Kemal

    FOR REASONS UNKNOWN

     

     

  • “DIASPORA TURKS”

    “DIASPORA TURKS”

    Bridge or Barrier in the EU Process?
    Dr. M. Murat Erdoğan,

    Hacettepe University, Ankara,
    Dept. of Political Science and Public Administration.
    He is Vice Director of the Hacettepe University
    European Union Research Center (HUAB) and
    of the Strategical Research Centre (HÜSAM).t Erdoğan

    Centuries have gone by since the retreat of
    Turks, who once controlled the entire Southeast
    of Europe and who had once expanded their territory
    up to Vienna. “Europe” and “Turkey”, once
    “mutual enemies”, then saw themselves rallying
    on the same side during the Cold War, deleting
    the negative marks of the past to a large extent.
    At the same time, the ideological-political
    orientation of Turkey toward Europe was more
    and more institutionalized and a strong human
    dimension was eventually added as well. Participating
    as far as possible in Western European
    institutions had a strong Europeanising effect,
    making Turkey a part of Europe. Turkey’s European
    commitment never seemed to perish
    despite the considerable challenges on the way
    to full participation in European institutions. Increasing
    “Europeanness” was not only limited
    to the state, it also established itself as one of
    the most important aspects of modern Turkish
    identity. “Europeanness” is a deliberate political
    choice of Turks and the efforts spent to reach
    this goal continue with great commitment.
    The human factor, a dimension hardly taken
    into account at the beginning, became an ever
    more important issue with the start of substantial
    “workforce immigration”, particularly to Germany,
    at the beginning of the 1960s. The agreement
    with the Federal Republic of Germany in 1961
    was soon followed by other European countries.
    The process and its implications, which have
    been characterised by the famous phrase of Max
    Frisch (“We wanted workers, but we got people”),
    started almost half a century ago. Even though
    the conditions of the Cold War are no longer
    present, the process continues to carry on. The
    immigrants and their families, identifying themselves
    as European Turks, increasingly hold signifi
    cant positions in the economic, cultural and
    political life of the countries they live in – especially
    after it had become apparent that most of
    them are not living in Europe on a “temporary”
    basis. More than 5 million Turkish migrants, with
    half of the population already being European
    citizens, are living example of this fundamental
    and qualitative change in European societies.
    The former “Gastarbeiter” identity, which meant
    “sitting on the baggage as if returning tomorrow”,
    has practically been surpassed for the majority
    of Turks living in Europe. The economic, cultural
    and intellectual capacity of Turkish immigrants,
    having evolved into a “European Turkish middle
    class” as active participants in European societies,
    constitutes part of Europe’s reality.
    Although impacting fi rst and foremost the countries
    with substantial Turkish immigration over
    the past fi fty years, the process has always been
    linked to European integration as well. Mass
    immigration of Turks to Europe and relations
    between Turkey and the EEC developed hand
    in hand, although there is no organic bond between
    the two. However, the lack of workforce in
    revitalised post war Europe played an important
    role in the association of Turkey to the European
    Economic Community. However, the charm of
    cheap labour seemed to decrease for the EC in
    the 1980s. Ironically, one of the most contested
    issues between Turkey and the EC became the
    questions related to the free movement of persons
    and European efforts to stop admissions
    or even to send back, if possible, people already
    living in Europe. Accordingly, Turks were eventually
    not granted the right of free movement, although
    this had been foreseen before.
    For Turkey, the migration of workforce meant a
    contribution to European growth, helping foreign
    countries to solve their notorious lack of labour.
    The revenue sent back to Turkey initially constituted
    an important source of income but gradually
    lost its importance because of the economic
    developments in Turkey and the decision of
    many migrants to eventually rather invest money
    in the country they live in. Whereas in 1995
    transfers still amounted to 5 billion USD, they
    dropped to an estimated 1 billion USD in 2009.
    Accordingly, after the 1990s, for Turkey the signifi
    cance of Turks living in Europe shifted from
    the economic to politics. The main change in
    migrant Turks’ attitudes in this context was illustrated
    by a considerable number of them turning
    from Turkish migrants into citizens of European
    countries. Turkish citizens in Europe were more
    and more perceived as a politically relevant entity,
    not only by Turkey but also by EU politicians,
    especially after 1993: The discussions on the
    new EU architecture and the establishment of
    a Customs Union between the EU and Turkey
    created an important atmosphere for European
    Turks to become part of the European equation.
    Accordingly, the group that had been cause for
    concern due to the problems attached to the
    free movement of persons became – anew –
    an important factor for Turkey. Now European
    Turks were more and more considered “Turkish
    Diaspora”, expected to help Turkey to reach
    its goals in foreign and domestic politics, going
    well beyond the signifi cance formerly attached
    to workers’ transfers of money. In 1997, Turkish
    Prime Minister Mesut Yılmaz even demanded of
    German Chancellor Helmut Kohl to “defi ne his
    attitude” towards Turkey and its EU ambitions
    ahead of the 1998 general elections.
    Many discussions and debates have accompanied
    the process ever since the workforce
    agreement with Germany in 1961. Despite all
    problems, half a century of common history
    has demonstrated that Turks in general have
    integrated well into the norms of Europe.
    ZEI EVENTS
    The task of the European Commission in
    ongoing accession negotiations consists
    not only in the technical conduct of negotiations,
    but to an increasing degree in the
    mediation between different expectations
    and demands attached to enlargement policy.
    This mediation is an important factor in
    adequately responding to European as well
    as to partner’s interests. During his visit to
    the Center for European Integration Studies
    (ZEI) on 24 June 2009, Commissioner Olli
    Rehn particularly acknowledged the moderating
    function of ZEI’s EU-Turkey-Monitor,
    accompanying accession negotiations between
    the EU and Turkey ever since their
    launch in late 2005. The reinforcement of
    mutual understanding and recognition in
    this as well as in other policy fi elds with particular
    external implications plays a major
    role in any successful European policy.
    hard time fi tting into European culture and
    lifestyle, never became a source of massive
    disruption in the countries where – initially –
    they were outsiders. On the contrary, they were
    the kind of group who contributed to the development
    of these countries by their labour and
    taxes, respecting the laws and integrating into
    the societies they live in. On the occasion of an
    international symposium, commemorating and
    discussing “Turks Abroad: Immigration and Integration
    in 50 Years” in Ankara in May 2009, Minister
    of State Faruk Çelik, in charge of migrant
    Turks, opposed the popular view that “Turks will
    create imbalance due to their cultural differences.”
    To the contrary, he stressed that “the existence
    of our citizens on European land and their
    contributions to Europe are the most meaningful
    response to those opposing the membership of
    Turkey in the EU”. An environment of symbiosis
    creates new dynamics, but the positive potential
    of this situation outweighs the negative ones and
    could be seen as an asset for Turkey on its way
    to the EU. At the same event, Egemen Bağış,
    Minister of State for EU Affairs and Chief Negotiator,
    clearly highlighted the important role of
    the Turkish “Diaspora” in this context: “We are,
    thanks to you, already in the EU and I see each
    one of you as our ambassador in our EU efforts”.
    These words clearly illustrate Turkey’s new policy
    towards “its European citizens”. According to
    recent declarations by Turkish politicians “integration
    that does not turn into assimilation” shall
    generate a win-win-situation for both, Europe
    and Turkey – only if Turkish migrants are taken
    seriously and are having economic, cultural and
    political relevance, they can play this role. Turkish
    migrants causing problems in the countries
    they live in, however, also create problems for
    Turkey – or, at least, are far from adding value.
    Therefore it could be argued that Turkey has no
    choice but to be truly sincere about integration,
    because only then all parties can benefi t. The
    question however remains, in how far the EU
    is equally sincere about it. If one considers the
    persistent obstacles to free movement, which is
    still one of the central issues in EU-Turkey relations,
    it appears that Turkish migrants as well as
    Turkish citizens suffer: Visa-free travel is still an
    illusion and it seems unlikely that the decisions
    of the Court of Justice in individual cases, which
    are only putting the fi nger on Europe’s negative
    attitude on free movement, will lead to a general
    improvement; one could therefore conclude that
    Turkish people are effectively being prevented
    from exercising some of the rights European
    legislation gives them.2 On the other hand, the
    European concern of potential mass immigration
    of Turks to Europe must also be addressed
    and taken into account in order to formulate a
    win-win-solution to this central obstacle to true
    integration.3
    Within the EU, the obstacles to free movement
    are complemented by limitations on political
    rights. The European demand to renounce Turkish
    citizenship for a working, tax-paying, lawabiding
    Turkish migrant, who has lived 30 or even
    40 years in Europe, reduces the eagerness to
    really become an EU citizen. It also raises emotional
    reactions for Turks to be subjected to different
    regulations in the process of admission to
    citizenship. The EU will have made a major contribution
    to integration by changing its attitude in
    this regard by, for example, giving migrants who
    have lived in Europe for a certain time the right to
    vote regardless of citizenship. Already today, the
    importance of Turkish migrants, accounting for
    an approximate 2.5 million qualifi ed voters, has
    come to an unprecedented degree. Political parties
    will increasingly be affected by this growing
    potential. The conservative notion that the emotional
    bond between Turkish migrants and Turkey
    is an obstacle for integration and therefore
    a reason for marginalising them from national
    political life requires re-examination. Turkey can
    be a part of the solution just as it can also be a
    part of the problem: As long as Turkish EU membership
    is used – or rather misused – for cheap
    propaganda, the topic as an election issue emotionally
    disturbs Turkish migrants. Arguments for
    an anti-enlargement course along the lines of
    “cultural-religious” differences, used for justifying
    why the “homeland” of many migrants (i.e. Turkey)
    should not be admitted, create the ground
    for dangerous reasoning: Turkish migrants,
    in the eyes of many Europeans displaying the
    characteristics of the country that shall not be
    admitted, are concerned whether those saying
    “An EU without Turkey” may someday say “An
    EU without Turks”. Accordingly, they perceive
    the “no to Turkey in the EU” campaign as a campaign
    against them, especially in the post 9/11
    environment with its growing Islamophobia and
    discriminatory policy approaches.4 This is not to
    argue that Turkish migrants shall be manipulated
    in the favour of Turkish policy goals since this
    would mean intervention in the internal affairs of
    the countries concerned. However, it should be
    acknowledged and taken into consideration that
    the integration (or non-integration) of Turkish
    migrants into different EU societies is partly but
    strongly linked with the question of Turkey joining
    the EU or not. To ignore this fact would mean
    to be ignorant to central links and connexions in
    this complex puzzle.
    From the presented point of view, it seems that
    Turkey is more successful than some EU member
    states if it comes to integration. Turkey is already
    playing a major “European” role in terms
    of culture (Eurovision, European Capital of Culture),
    economy (Customs Union, commerce
    with the EU), politics (Council of Europe), and
    security (NATO, OSCE, European Security and
    Defence Policy). The only – central – European
    arena whose decision making mechanisms
    Turkey does not participate in is the EU. It is
    an undeniable fact that Turks are an important
    component of European life. Through immigration,
    European countries have already tested
    whether it is possible to live with Turks. At this
    point, it can already be concluded that Turkish
    migrants constitute an undeniable “social-political
    capital” to Europe that should not and must
    not be wasted by building up barriers instead
    of establishing a climate of mutual understanding,
    respect and cooperation. Only by really accepting
    and understanding Turkish migrants as
    “capital”, the countries they live in can fully benefi
    t from the potential of its migrant population.
    Turkish migrants are a “soft power” that cannot
    only contribute to the admission of Turkey to the
    EU but also to the general interests of European
    countries – particularly in times of crisis as they
    are experienced today in the fi nancial and economic
    sphere.

    1
    Turks, who were expected to have a rather
    ZEI EU-Turkey-Monitor Vol. 5 No. 2 August 2009 7
    Dr. Olli Rehn, EU Commissioner for Enlargement, meets with ZEI Director Prof. Dr.
    Ludger Kühnhardt and Dr. Andreas Marchetti, Editor of the ZEI EU-Turkey-Monitor.
    1) Cf. also Eleni Mavrogeorgis: A Clash of Perceptions,
    Not of Civilizations.: Revealing Muslim & Non-Muslim
    Perceptions of National Loyalty and Integrated Living
    (Rutgers DGA Policy Brief, 1), Newark 2009.
    2) R. Gutman during the mentioned symposium.
    3) Former MEP V. Öger at the same event.
    4) U. Erdener, Rector of Hacettepe University, at the
    mentioned symposium.

  • José Manuel Barroso wins second term

    José Manuel Barroso wins second term

    September 16, 2009

    as European Commission President

    David Charter in Strasbourg

    From The Times
    September 17, 2009
    Votes from Conservative MEPs helped to give José Manuel Barroso a clear mandate yesterday for a second term as President of the European Commission. The former Portuguese Prime Minister won an absolute majority in the European Parliament despite strong attacks from the Left, who accused him of failing to do enough in his first five-year term to regulate financial markets and banks or to save jobs during the recession. Mr Barroso won with the backing of 382 of the 718 MEPs who voted, leaving him in a strong position to run the body that initiates all EU legislation. To win over the crucial swing votes of European Liberals and Greens, Mr Barroso promised to create three EU commissioners — for fundamental rights, migration and climate change — when the body is reappointed in the autumn.

    Related Links

    • Barroso will stay in power, but not on his terms
    • Barroso and Blair ‘dream team’ on the cards
    The Conservatives backed Mr Barroso despite his support for a more integrated Europe and for the Lisbon treaty, which David Cameron has pledged to subject to a referendum if he can. Gordon Brown described Mr Barroso’s victory as a great result. “Under his leadership, the European Commission and Europe as a whole will continue to tackle the issues that matter to Europeans: jobs and growth, and the global challenges of security, poverty and climate change,” he said. Labour MEPs defied Downing Street, however, and decided to abstain in the vote, accusing Mr Barroso of not doing enough for workers.
    Barroso addresses Turkish parliament in Ankara | April 10, 2008 height="344">

  • UK, Racism; From the streets to the courts

    UK, Racism; From the streets to the courts

    a6A mini-pogrom in Ulster has shocked Britain. But a legal battle with the far right is brewing on the mainland.

    RACIST bogeymen leered out of newspaper pages in both Britain and Northern Ireland this week. On the mainland, the far-right British National Party (BNP), which won its first two seats in the European Parliament earlier this month, was given an ultimatum by Britain’s equality watchdog to step in line with non-discrimination laws or face legal action. Separately, white thugs in Ulster hounded more than a hundred Romanian immigrants—mainly Roma gypsies—out of their homes and, in most cases it now seems, away from the province altogether.

    The attacks in south Belfast were of the sort that Northern Ireland hoped had died with the Troubles. Over several nights crowds stoned the homes of immigrant families, smashing windows and posting extracts of Mein Kampf through letterboxes. Tension between locals and east European immigrants had simmered since football hooligans clashed at a match between Poland and Northern Ireland in March. When the intimidation reached a peak on June 16th, the Romanians were moved to a church hall and then to a leisure centre. On June 23rd Northern Ireland’s government announced that most had decided to return to Romania.

    Northern Ireland elected no far-right politicians to the European Parliament in the polling on June 4th. Nonetheless, many in Britain reckon that their neighbours over the water are a more prejudiced bunch than they are themselves. Socially, Ulster leans to the right: civil partnerships, greeted with a shrug by most British Tories, attracted protests in Belfast when they were introduced in 2005; abortion is also more restricted than on the mainland.

    It may be that these conservative attitudes extend to scepticism about outsiders. A survey published on June 24th by Northern Ireland’s Equality Commission, a statutory watchdog, found that nearly a quarter of the population would be unhappy if a migrant worker moved in next-door. People were even more hostile to Irish travellers, sometimes called gypsies (and often confused with Roma). Just over half said they would mind having travellers living next to them.

    Comparing these results with the rest of Britain is hard because surveys produce different answers according to how a question is worded. Across the United Kingdom, less than a tenth of whites say they would mind having a black or Asian boss (though nearly a third admit to being at least “a little” racially prejudiced). But the trends on the mainland and in Ulster are in sharp contrast. British hang-ups about minorities have fallen pretty steadily over the past 20 years, according to the British Social Attitudes Survey, a big questionnaire. By contrast, Northern Irish dislike of travellers is up by a quarter from 2005.

    Yet sectarian tensions in Northern Ireland are relatively low. Only 6% now say they would mind having a neighbour of a different faith. One theory goes that the fizzling out of the old disputes has helped to stoke other ones. “The attitudes that facilitate sectarianism may find new outlets in new times,” suggested Bob Collins, the head of the commission. Immigrants are not the only victims: anti-gay sentiment, falling across Britain, has gone up by more than half in Northern Ireland since 2005.

    Glass houses

    The election of a man with a conviction for inciting race hatred to represent northern England in the European Parliament spoils any pretty notion that all is well on the mainland. But the selection of Nick Griffin, the leader of the BNP, and his colleague Andrew Brons, a former National Front chairman, has provoked a legal challenge from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), a mega-watchdog.

    The EHRC wrote to Mr Griffin on June 23rd that it believed the BNP fell foul of the law in its race-based membership policy, its hiring (which appears to be restricted to party members) and what the EHRC interpreted as hints that the party would not provide an equal service to constituents of all races. Unless the BNP changes its ways by July 20th, the watchdog will seek a court order to force it to; if the party held that in contempt it could face fines, imprisonment—and publicity.

    Why pounce now? First, the EHRC was born only in 2007. Its predecessor, the Commission for Racial Equality, lacked the power to pursue this sort of independent legal challenge. Second, the law has been clarified: the law lords ruled in November 2007 that certain functions of political parties are indeed subject to the Race Relations Act of 1976, which had been in doubt.

    Most obviously, the action was triggered by the electoral success of the BNP which, coupled with talk in Westminster about voting reform likely to benefit small parties, has made it harder to dismiss as a sideshow. Others have moved against the BNP since the election: the Royal British Legion, a veterans’ group, publicly called on Mr Griffin to stop wearing its poppy emblem; the government is pondering banning BNP members from teaching, just as they are already banned from the police and prison services. A forthcoming bill on equal opportunities is expected to include a clause explicitly to stop the BNP and its ilk from insisting on race-based membership.

    If the EHRC’s complaint goes to court, it will not be the first time a case against a political party has tested race-relations laws. The 1976 act followed a House of Lords ruling in 1973 upholding the right of East Ham South Conservative Club to ban a Sikh because of his race. And the 2007 Lords’ ruling that has clarified the grounds for the EHRC’s current case was over a complaint by a Pakistani man—upheld by their lordships—against the Labour Party.

    Economist

  • ‘Obama Is Certainly A European’, Prof Ash

    ‘Obama Is Certainly A European’, Prof Ash

    Interview: ‘Obama Is Certainly A European’

    freeinternetpress

    Oxford historian Timothy Garton Ash discusses the demise of Europe’s social democrats, threats to the European Union posed by populist nationalists, the imminent change of government in Great Britain and America’s rapid slide to the left.

    SPIEGEL: Professor Garton Ash, in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression voters have turned away from the social democrats and socialists in European elections. Isn’t this paradoxical?

    Timothy Garton Ash: I think there’s an explanation for it. First, voters apparently feel that the conservatives and liberals are more competent when it comes to economic policy. Second, we are witnessing a return to nationalism as a reaction to the great crisis. And when that happens, voters tend to move to the right rather than to the left, in some cases quite far to the right.

    SPIEGEL: It would seem that leftists, the critics of capitalism, would stand to benefit from a crisis of capitalism.

    Garton Ash: In essence, you have two social democratic parties in Germany, just as we do in Great Britain – with some minor differences. David Cameron’s Conservatives are taking (former Prime Minister) Tony Blair’s approach, except when it comes to European policy. And there is no decisive difference between the Christian Democrats and the Social Democrats in Germany, at least not by the standards of the last century.

    SPIEGEL: In other words, we lack ideological differences, and we are all social democrats?

    Garton Ash: I think so. We are not talking about capitalism as such, but about the question of which form of capitalism works best in our country. And then there is the question of competency. Our governments are behaving more and more like managers. After 10 years, voters are dissatisfied with the current management, and along comes a new one.

    SPIEGEL: The left lost its identity as a result of politicians like Tony Blair and (former German Chancellor) Gerhard Schroder, who believed in the free market and abandoned old social democratic principals. Isn’t that the reason for their defeat throughout Europe?

    Garton Ash: I don’t think so. In each case, the voter is voting for a version of European social liberal democracy. Perhaps a party that calls itself conservative can provide him with the better social democracy.

    SPIEGEL: At least 15 percent of the new European parliament will consist of right-wing extremists, protest parties and joke parties. What does this mean for Europe’s future?

    Garton Ash: If I remember correctly, Bertolt Brecht said: “The womb is fertile still, which bore this fruit.” We are deluding ourselves if we believe that the temptation of xenophobia and national populism no longer exists, and we shouldn’t be surprised to see these forces being strengthened in the course of a major economic crisis. We must make the social market economy credible again as the central solution for the middle class.

    SPIEGEL: How?

    Garton Ash: There are two major domestic policy challenges for the European Union. First: Creating meaningful work for the majority of society. And second: the integration of fellow citizens of non-European descent. These are two sides of the same coin. After all, what are the populists and xenophobes saying, from Latvia to Portugal, and from Finland to Greece? They are saying: We’re in bad shape, and the others are at fault. Both parts of that sentence must be addressed politically.

    SPIEGEL: In Great Britain, the racist British National Party has won two seats for the first time.

    Garton Ash: The same thing also happened in Romania, Finland and Hungary. There are comparable developments everywhere. Until now, the Conservatives in Great Britain have always managed to neutralize the extreme right, just as the CDU/CSU has done in Germany. This time, not only has the BNP won its first two seats, but the anti-European U.K. Independence Party (UKIP) has even won more votes than Labor. Now that’s unsettling.

    SPIEGEL: Do the successes of right-wing extremists and the defeat of the left also indicate a decline in solidarity among voters?

    Garton Ash: Solidarity is certainly a European value, but our willingness to display solidarity also has narrow limits, especially toward the poor, and even more so when they are of non-European origin. This stems partly from the fact that we have developed social welfare states that are difficult to sustain, especially in global competition. The integration of immigrants in the United States is easier, because there is no social welfare state there.

    SPIEGEL: While Europe slips to the right, the United States, under Barack Obama, is discovering the social market economy – and is slipping to the left.

    Garton Ash: Soon they’ll be more European than we are.

    SPIEGEL: How do you explain that?

    Garton Ash: Six years ago, we had the manifesto of Jurgen Habermas and Jacques Derrida in connection with the discussion of the Iraq crisis, pitting Europe, with its socially progressive values against the United States. In that respect Obama, in terms of his system of values, is certainly a European. This is because the middle class in the United States has experienced the brutality and injustice of the unbridled Anglo-Saxon free market economy firsthand – in the healthcare system, for example.

    ‘The True European Elections Will Take Place in Germany in September’

    SPIEGEL: The election was a European election, and yet Europe wasn’t really the issue at all. Instead, the election was about national politics. Does this demonstrate that Europe is not united at all, but in fact divided?

    Garton Ash: I like to say that the true European elections will take place in Germany at the end of September. The German parliamentary election is certainly more important for the future of the European Union.

    SPIEGEL: Why?

    Garton Ash: At issue is the behavior of the most important member of the European Union, which is obvious. The competencies of the European Parliament have certainly grown, and I believe that voters underestimate its true influence. Nevertheless, the European Union is no direct democracy, nor will it become one anytime soon. I believe that voters sense this, and in this regard their behavior is completely rational.

    SPIEGEL: The competencies of the European Parliament have been expanded, partly in the hope that this would increase voter turnout, and yet it was lower than ever this year.

    Garton Ash: I believe that voter turnout will not improve in the foreseeable future, at least not as long as we are not prepared to take the big step toward a United States of Europe, and toward direct democracy. Almost nowhere in Europe are we prepared to do this. The parliament will remain a part of the European system, but the decisive elements will continue to be the European Council, the council of ministers and the cooperation among democratically elected governments.

    SPIEGEL: Doesn’t the voters’ lack of interest show that political Europe has disengaged itself from its citizens?

    Garton Ash: I believe that the European project is a victim of its own success. In each country, the pro-European argument, all national differences aside, took the same form: We were doing poorly, but thanks to Europe our lot will improve. But then comes the moment when we take Europe for granted, which raises the question: What is the purpose of this Europe?

    SPIEGEL: And what is it?

    Garton Ash: We need, for example, a common European foreign policy, so that we can defend our interest in an increasingly non-European world.

    SPIEGEL: Are the words of Henry Kissinger still applicable …?

    Garton Ash:who was searching for a phone number for Europe? I believe, by the way, that he never said that. We did a lot of research at this university and were unable to find a source for the quote. In the end, I wrote to Henry Kissinger myself, and asked: Where did you say this? His response was wonderful. He wrote: I think I must have said it. I just don’t remember when and where. Of course, there is a kernel of truth to the remark. From Washington’s standpoint, or from Beijing’s or Moscow’s, Europe does not exist as a foreign policy player. And we must begin to exist.

    SPIEGEL: Do you really believe that Germany or France would give up its own foreign policy? Don’t national interests always trump European interests?

    Garton Ash: Why always? Why should something that was true in the past continue to apply in the future? The deutsche mark was the epitome of German identity, and yet the Germans gave it up. The history of the European Union over the last 50 years is a history of impossible things that happened, after all.

    SPIEGEL: And how do we arrive at a common foreign policy?

    Garton Ash: We don’t need a United States of Europe for that. What we need, most of all, is the political will of a strategic coalition of member states. It must include Germany, France and Great Britain, but others, as well. When that happens, it will be possible to pursue a common foreign policy.

    SPIEGEL: But there is a big difference between giving up a currency and giving up one’s own foreign policy. Economically speaking, the Union is accepted as a success story, but political Europe is criticized. In Great Britain and Eastern Europe, skeptics of the European Union are calling for a return to a purely economic union.

    Garton Ash: We already have a common foreign policy in the E.U. today – with regard to Tehran’s nuclear program, for example. And it is also accepted by the public. Now it is time to explain why it makes sense to pursue a common Russia policy, or a China policy, and why we are stronger together than individually.

    SPIEGEL: Isn’t it a vote of no confidence against Europe when voters elect someone like the Romanian Paris Hilton, the president’s daughter, Elena Basescu, to the parliament, as well as Sweden’s Pirate Party, and jokesters and odd characters like Austrian populist Hans-Peter Martin?

    Garton Ash: This is an indication of two things. First, voters are saying to themselves that the European Parliament isn’t all that important, so we can afford to elect a couple of pirates. Second – and this is something we see everywhere in Europe – there is a growing, deep dissatisfaction with the political class, to the point of a pre-revolutionary mood. The scandal over the expense accounts of British politicians we are currently experiencing is only one example among many.

    SPIEGEL: What is the source of this deep dissatisfaction?

    Garton Ash: I keep hearing the same thing from a wide range of people throughout Europe: The parliament is a self-service shop, and the political class is merely there to pursue its own interests.

    SPIEGEL: But that view is borne out by the scandal surrounding British members of parliament who used government funds to buy plasma TVs and porn films.

    Garton Ash: It’s really more complicated than that. The reason for this scandal is that politicians, almost 30 years ago, lacked the courage to approve better pay for members of parliament. That’s why they created this absurd system of so-called expenses, which were in fact allowances. As a result, all MPs became expense knights. And some of them were even real knights, right?

    SPIEGEL: At the moment, it looks as though David Cameron will be the next British prime minister.

    Garton Ash: Indeed.

    SPIEGEL: Cameron is threatening to hold a referendum over the Lisbon Treaty. That would be a declaration of war on Europe. Do you think he’ll do it?

    Garton Ash: If you were to inject a truth serum into David Cameron, he would probably have to confess to his secret hope that the treaty will be ratified by then. Then the referendum would no longer be necessary. I believe that, deep in his heart, he is not a euro-skeptic when it comes to Europe. The majority of his MPs and his foreign policy spokesman, William Hague, are euro-skeptics out of conviction. He has to use this rhetoric, especially because the UKIP did so well in the European election. And that’s why it is important for the European Union that the end of the Gordon Brown administration be drawn out for as long as possible.

    SPIEGEL: Cameron is now trying to forge an alliance with Polish and Czech opponents of Europe in the European Parliament.

    Garton Ash: Farce begets farce. Unfortunately, the man carelessly stated a position on the question of the European Parliament in 2005, when he was fighting for the leadership of the Conservatives. Aside from that, though, he learned an important lesson from Blair: Never commit to anything. But that’s why he must now remain true to himself, and is thereby compromising the British Conservatives. Suddenly they’re in bed with Latvian friends of the Waffen SS, Polish homophobes and Czech deniers of climate change.

    SPIEGEL: Is Gordon Brown truly, as they say, the worst British prime minister since Neville Chamberlain?

    Garton Ash: By no means. He isn’t a bad prime minister, as far as the content of his policies is concerned. I don’t know if the inexperienced David Cameron would have handled this major crisis more effectively. But as a personality, Brown is undoubtedly one of the weakest politicians. He makes one mistake after the next. He lacks the talent to sell his policies. He looks ridiculous when he tries in vain on YouTube, where he looks like a grandfather, to sell the people a solution to the expenses affair. He is hampered by the machinery of politics.

    SPIEGEL: Does he lack the charisma?

    Garton Ash: He lacks it completely. He hasn’t even managed to simply come across as a direct and upright character, which is something Angela Merkel has mastered. He could have been the Scottish Mr. Merkel. But he’s too Blairist for that. He wants to manipulate public opinion, and perhaps the worst thing is to try and fail in that endeavor.

    SPIEGEL: Who is responsible for the demise of New Labor? Tony Blair or Gordon Brown?

    Garton Ash: If this is its death, then it certainly had a nice life. In fact, it was quite successful: three legislative periods in a row, which is something Labor didn’t manage in 100 years. Besides, the Labor government is leaving behind a fairly substantial legacy – including Conservatives, who for the better part have adopted New Labor’s approach.

    SPIEGEL: Couldn’t Labor be successful again, after all, perhaps with Alan Johnson as a new party leader?

    Garton Ash: As a historian, I know that everything is possible in history, except cheating death. But I would bet a bottle of champagne that even the best Labor leader in the world will not win the next election.

    SPIEGEL: What kind of a bottle?

    Garton Ash: A magnum bottle, I would say.

    You can read this Spiegel interview with Historian Timothy Garton Ash in context here:

    www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,631359,00.html

    This interview was in German, it was translated from the German for Spiegel by Christopher Sultan.

    Source: www.reeinternetpress.com, 21.06.2009