The Anti-Turkish Crusade of Valery Giscard d´ Estaing July 4, 2010Posted by Yilan in EU, European Union, Turkey.
Tags: EU, Turkey
Before almost six years, I published in Buzzle two articles on the catastrophic approach of the French Freemasonic establishment to Turkey. Following recent demands expressed from many readers who cannot immediately find them in my account in the American Chronicle, which started in October 2006, I make them herewith available. Figures relate to financial data available in the last months of 2004.
Analysis of the inconsistent argumentation of the former French President published in the Zaman (25 November) under the title ´Return to Reason´.
Refutation of Valery Giscard d´ Estaing´s erratic approach to modern European policy making
Part II: the Political Approach
By Prof. Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis
In a previous article (entitled ´Irrelevant Giscard d´ Estaing: the Anti-Turkish Euro-Myopic´) we refuted the historical approach of the former French President to issues related to Turkey´s adhesion to the European Union. It was a first answer to the commentary published by Giscard d´Estaing in Zaman (25 November) under the title ´Return to Reason´. Here we intend to reject his political argumentation, and to unveil the secret agenda hidden behind Giscard d´ Estaing´s opposition to Turkey´s entrance to the European Union.
The Pledges Made to Turkey in 1960.
At the beginning of his article, the former French president attempts to state that the ´´pledges made in the 1960s must be considered within a different historical context. They involved the possible entry of Turkey into the “Single Market”, which was exclusively economic in nature at the time´´. This is very absurd indeed; the nature of the Union was economic indeed, but it was conceived and meant as heralding a forthcoming political union, which proved to be true! The intentions and targets of the European fathers, Jean Monnet and Robert Schumann above all, were of purely political nature. The mean were of economic nature, but the entire plan was political. Jean Monnet´s basic idea of reference, namely ´Nous ne coalisons pas des Etats, nous unissons des hommes´ (we do not make coalitions of states, we unite men) is absolutely political of essence.
All the references of the European Union to its history prove that there was a basic political character involved even before its inception. The first paragraph of the European Union website (http://europa.eu.int/abc/history/index_en.htm) reads: ´For centuries, Europe was the scene of frequent and bloody wars. In the period 1870 to 1945, France and Germany fought each other three times, with terrible loss of life. A number of European leaders became convinced that the only way to secure a lasting peace between their countries was to unite them economically and politically´. In vain Giscard d´ Estaing tries to present as an argument the assertion that the European leaders, who made pledges of adhesion to Turkey already in 1960, meant ´economic´ and not ´political´ adhesion. This is unsustainable.
Religion is – or is not – an issue.
This is what Giscard tries to say, stressing his point that in the future there is going to be certainly a predominantly Muslim state within Europe, namely Bosnia – Herzegovina. Although it is to his credit that he rejects religious discrimination, it is not quite sure that he does not promote discriminatory policies in a covered way.
First of all, if the European political leadership sticks to its rejection of religious discrimination, then Europe must be prepared to accept four – not one – predominantly Muslim states, i.e. Bosnia – Herzegovina, Albania, Kosovo, and Turkey. It is to be hoped that there is no religious motivation for Europe not to proceed in the case of Kosovo in the way it did with regard to Slovenia.
Why 2 million people Christian Slovenia was so easily recognized as an independent state, and 2 million people Muslim Kosovo still faces difficulty in this regard?
Speaking about Turkey more specifically, Giscard questions: ´Would acceptance of Turkey into the European Union prevent this country from sliding towards Islamic fundamentalism´? It is quite interesting that he accepts the validity of the question, since this is a top political argument for the European political classes that recognize the importance and the critical character of Turkey´s adhesion in the European Union. The question is pertinent indeed, and there is a lot at stake in this regard. A deceived Turkey, run by an Islamic government, will shift to nationalist radicalism fueling the already explosive situation in the Balkans.
What can be the result of a blatant or covered European rejection of Turkey? One must admit that there are so many pending issues in the Balkans that an erupted Turkey will be able to keep Europe in war for decades. Here we enumerate some possibilities that are certainly well known to Mr. Giscard:
The Turkish minority in Bulgaria (1.5 million people) will secede, using arms if need be, and demand adhesion to the European Christian club of Giscard´s.
Kosovo will demand immediately international recognition, and if this is not offered on the spur of the moment, it will merge with Albania.
Illyrian Albanians that constitute no less than 40 to 45% of the population of Macedonia will secede as well, equally demanding international recognition, and they will be threatening to join Albania in case of rejection.
The Turkish minority in Greece (Western Thrace), following the example of the Turkish minority in Bulgaria, will be an immediate reason for war between Turkey and Greece, and this could immediately expand throughout the Aegean Sea, and Cyprus.
A final Balkan war could also erupt, bringing Turkey and Albania against Greece and Bulgaria, or Greece and Serbia, thus generating an Islamic rebellion in Voivodina, the northern province of Serbia, provoking an immediate secession of Montenegro and Sandjak from the Serbian tyranny, and leading to the creation of a greater Albania.
It is sure at that at the aftermath of such a war the former French president will find Turkey ´more European´ as possessing a larger portion of its territory on European soil, but all the bridges will have been broken.
If Giscard truly believes that religion is not an issue, he must sincerely work in this direction. He should understand that the ongoing islamization process in parts of the Balkans (Sandjak is very particular in this regard) will plunge the entire European Union in so disastrous wars that the Bosnian episode in the 90s will look a pleasant reminiscence! Except, the former French president truly wants these religious wars on European soil!
The way Giscard discusses the issue proves that he is totally ignorant of the recent underground developments in the Balkans, i.e. European soil! We should rather suggest him a pertinent and perspicacious recent publication in French ´Balkans: le Sandjak de Novi Pazar, carrefour de l’islam radical?´ (Balkans: Novi Pazar´s Sandjak at the crossroads of the radical Islam?) by Jean-Arnault Dérens (http://religion.info/french/articles/article_92.shtml). Giscard answers the question of the negative consequences a European rejection of Turkey would have, saying ´We cannot know´. In the light of the recent developments in Balkans, we have full reason to believe we can. But Giscard proves to be completely irrelevant, when he analyzes as follows: ´The intensity of religious faith will depend not only on internal factors, but on the solidarity of ties with the neighbouring Islamic countries as well´.
This statement is completely erroneous, and it is truly hard to believe that a former French president with multifaceted access to numerous French services and channels of information would sincerely make such mistakes. First, the ´internal´ factors in every country are the recipient of external developments. This is true for France, America, Turkey, any country in the world.
On the other hand, ´solidarity of ties´ is a non-factor with regard to ´intensity´ of religious faith among present days Turks in case of a European rejection. There isn´t any reason for the average Turk to care about what happens in Iran or Syria. Even in the case of the war against Iraq, ´solidarity of ties´ was not an issue for the average people of Turkey. Anti-Americanism was higher in France than in Turkey. And more precisely, in the case of an eventual European rejection of Turkey, the Turks will observe Europe, not Syria or Iran! An eventual European rejection of Turkey would not cause a change in the ´intensity of religious faith of the Turks´; it would simply create an anti-European nationalist indignation that would find a way to be expressed not with regard to Syria or Iran but with focus on Balkans.
The irrelevant Mr. Giscard should know that the Turks – and this has nothing to do with religious faith, being rather relevant of political argumentation, violation of Human Rights, and ideological rejection of the typically colonial, French attitude – would not accept the French policies of double standards, and will contribute to the diffusion of Freedom, Democracy, and Human Rights throughout the tyrannically oppressed Balkans. If tiny Cyprus and Malta are accepted as independent countries, so Kosovo, Sandjak, Montenegro, Voivodina, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, Illyrian Macedonia, and other tyrannized Balkan countries must be.
It is unbelievable that Giscard pretends not to know that Turkey´s contacts and exchanges with the Balkans are far more intense than the mediocre ties that exist between Turkey and Iran or Syria. This alone proves that the former French president has a hidden agenda, which he intends to observe. To make our conclusion even safer, he adds that Turkey´s ´neighbouring Islamic countries might seem to be more natural´ to the average Turks ´than changing their laws to fit the model set up by remote authorities in distant Brussels´.
This is purely ridiculous! Giscard d´ Estaing knows very well that Turkey is much closer to Brussels and to Paris than to dictatorial Damascus, suicidal Baghdad, backward Tehran, or illiterate and miserable Cairo. Giscard knows very well that Turkey surpassed France in implementing and expanding democratic laws in a galloping way already before 70 or 80 years.
Women were granted the right to elect and/or be elected in Turkey four (4) years before they achieved such a status in France.
Whether Giscard likes it or not, Turkey rejected the Middle East, the fanatic and extremist version of Islam promoted there by the uneducated bogus-sheikhs of Cairo, Medina, and Mecca. Turkey shaped a strong civic society avoiding the typical Middle Eastern underdevelopment, nepotism, theo-centric ignorance, analphabetism, and poverty, as well as the ensuing misery, nutrition based on garbage, diseases and grave contaminations.
If Giscard knows that underdevelopment in Turkey ended with the westernization and industrialization introduced by Mustafa Kamal Pasha Ataturk, why he condemns himself to so poor presentations and analysis? The answer is simple: his hidden agenda (that has always been that of colonial France) implies an Islamic radicalization, a ´Middle-Easternization´ of Turkey in a forthcoming ´Clash of Civilizations´. One may wonder what the profit of such a dangerous policy would be, yet it is clear that we deal with a typically French, colonial approach, which involves instrumentalizing of the opponent. A radical Middle East with Turkey engulfed in the tenebrous Islamic fanaticism that characterizes Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Egypt and Pakistan may probably be the means of French anti-American, anti-Semitic, and anti-Israeli schizophrenia.
The language argument
At a further point of his dissertation, Giscard mixes politics with culture and language to misinform and mislead his readership one more time! To cite him precisely: “Turkey has its own language and culture. The Turkish language does not share the same roots as those found in the large family of Indo-European languages”. This is an aberration! Europe is not the continent of the Indo-European languages family, as he seems to hint at! Basque, a language spoken in his native France and in Spain, is not an Indo-European language! Estonian, Finnish and Hungarian emanate from the same Uralo-Altaic linguistic family as the Turkish language itself does! And already the three respective countries, Estonia, Finland and Hungary, are member-states of the European Union! Maltese is a definitely Semitic byproduct of the Arabic mixed with Italianisms. No one thought that this would be an obstacle in Malta´s adhesion to the European Union….
After all, there are Indo-European languages spoken outside Europe! If the basic common denominator of the European Union is language, then Iran and India should join, since Farsi and Hindi are definitely Indo-European languages!
Later on, Giscard proceeds to further nonsense stating the links between Turkey, Caucasus and Central Asia as reason for non accepting Turkey in the European Union! More precisely he says: “It should also be borne in mind that the Turkish population is part of a much larger community with Turkish roots which remains united through ties of solidarity, and which extends to the East, notably the Central Asian States, for example Turkmenistan”.
But by saying so, Giscard d´ Estaing contradicts the basic reason European Communities accepted Spain and Portugal in the middle 80s! What counted for the adhesion of Madrid and Lisbon was not their poor economic performance but their ties with Latin America (Brazil and the Spanish speaking countries from Mexico to Chile) and Africa (Angola, Mozambique) that were expected to open new windows to European trade overseas. So, if the Lusophone world accounts for approximately 220 million people (Portugal included), the Turkic world is certainly more populous, encompassing not only Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan but also significant populations in Iran (7 million people), Afghanistan (6 million people), Pakistan (the official language, Urdu, is based on Turkic), China (30 to 40 million people in Eastern Turkistan – also called Uyguristan), Mongolia and Russia (5 to 7 million people throughout Siberia). In brief, it is safe to claim that Turkey would offer Europe the greatest gate to Asia, plus a universal dimension without which Europe has no chance to face America in the global world trade.
The economic argument
Giscard focuses also on what seems to be the strongest argument for anti-Turkish advocates among European politicians: the per capita GDP. Giscard says: “The average income per inhabitant is only half the level of that of the ten new Member States and one-fifth that of the Europe of fifteen. The structure of its economy, although it has made noticeable progress in recent years, is still a far cry from the European “norm”. Agricultural production still accounts for 14percent of its GDP”.
We will start from the last point, agricultural production; truly speaking, it accounts for 11.7% of the GDP (according to the CIA World Factbook – http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/tu.html). The difference in the figure is not great, and certainly the figure is high for European norms; but the attempt of falsifying figures is what counts against Giscard, who tries to intimidate European voters in this way, since a few percentage points more or less translate to billions of Euro.
But what matters here is that Giscard passes under silence the fact that the basic figure, per capita GDP, is even lower in most of the cases of the other candidates to European Union state membership. If Turkey´s per capita GDP is (following always the same source, namely the CIA World Factboook) 6700 US$, here is the respective list for the other candidates:
Romania – 7000 US $ (with agriculture accounting for 13.1% of the GDP)
Bulgaria – 7600 US $ (with agriculture accounting for 11.4%)
Bosnia – Herzegovina – 6100 US $ (with agriculture accounting for 13%)
Macedonia – 6700 US $ (with agriculture accounting for 11.3%)
Ukraine – 5400 US $ (with agriculture accounting for 18.8%)
Moldova – 1800 US $ (with agriculture accounting for 21%)
Belarus – 6100 US $ (with agriculture accounting for 11.1%)
Albania – 4500 US $ (with agriculture accounting for 47.5%) and
Serbia – 2200 US $ (with agriculture accounting for 15.2%)
With all this made clear, it would not be serious to discuss arguments related the size of the country and the economy, f.i. that Albania has a population of 3.5 million people, being therefore easier to be absorbed within Europe, because the real benefit from the adhesion of another country into the European Union is obtained mostly (for both sides) in the economies of scale. In addition, with the beginning of the negotiations it is expected that foreign investment will double, helping thus to speed up the growth of the Turkish economy, which already attains rhythms that are beyond imagination for quasi-stagnant France.
Picture: This map in itself means nothing. Either Europe will understand this reality or Europe will be deservedly disintegrated in chaos.