Euromedia

Turkey: a bridge to the future, a bridge to the past

The European Union is faced with a difficult decision. If it doesn't allow Turkey to join the EU, it could be viewed as further proof of the "clash" between the Muslim world and the west. If it does allow Turkey to join, it faces a potential wave of immigrants that people aren't ready for or fully accepting. And, with open borders and Turkey's neighbors, obvious security concerns.

Europeans praise themselves for their ability to overcome the past, by creating things like a European Defense Agency 90 years after World War I and only 15 years after the fall of Communism. But to turn its attention away from overcoming centuries of exclusion and battles against the Muslim world and the Turks would be to ignore a much more pressing issue.

International Herald Tribune -Is EU ready for Turkey? Muslim world is waiting

Roger Cohen: Is EU ready for Turkey? Muslim world is waiting

Roger Cohen International Herald Tribune
Tuesday, May 11, 2004

Globalist
 
ISTANBUL

Where Europe ends, and with it presumably the European Union, has long been a vexed question. Just how vexed will be demonstrated over the next seven months as the EU grapples with a critical decision: whether to begin negotiations leading to Turkish membership.

The EU has just admitted 10 new members without being sure how it will run itself as a 25-member club. So the notion of opening the way for Turkey appears far-fetched. This is a country of close to 70 million people, the vast majority of them Muslims, bordering Iraq, Syria and Iran. Few Europeans associate such dangerous borders with their continent.

But Turkey amounts to a special case. Its links with the EU go back to 1963, when it entered into economic agreements. Ever since, the prospect of possible membership has been dangled with growing specificity before this diverse and determinedly secular state. Now the EU Commission is completing a report on Turkey that will form the basis for a decision by European leaders in December.

The looming verdict will provoke sharp divisions. Tony Blair, the British prime minister, recently expressed strong support for Turkish membership, saying it would bring a "new dimension" to the EU. The German government also appears favorable. But Alain Juppé of France, the leader of President Jacques Chirac's UMP party, said last month that his party opposed opening negotiations with Turkey. Chirac himself has been more evasive, saying Turkey has a "European vocation." Make of that Delphic phrase what you will.

Scrutiny of the EU's next move is intense in the United States, in the Islamic world and in Turkey itself. The American view is straightforward. Europe says it wants good relations with Muslims. That being the case, it cannot slam the door on Turkey.

"If the Muslim world is not an enemy, they have to go through with this," said one American official.

The American idea, of course, is that Turkey's natural role is as a bridge between the West and the Islamic world at a time when suspicion and anger are growing over Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. To open talks leading to EU membership would sweep away suspicions of religious and cultural prejudice that have grown as Turkey has waited on the sidelines for four decades. It would show that a Muslim country that is also a secular democracy has its place at the same European table as France, Britain and Germany.

Support for EU membership is strong in Turkey. Saban Disli, the vice-chairman of the governing Justice and Development Party of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, said that negotiations should begin in the first half of next year with a view to bringing Turkey into the EU by 2008, or 2010 at the latest.

"If Turkey is left out, close to 1.5 billion Muslims around the world will feel as bad as I will feel," he said. "The clash between Islam and the West will be sharpened."

Erdogan, who leads a party with Islamic roots that some now refer to as "Muslim Democrats" (an echo of Europe's right-of-center Christian Democrats), has worked hard to persuade European leaders that Turkey, a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, is now ready. Just last week, special state security courts sometimes used to try Kurds were abolished, one of a series of amendments to the Constitution.

In general, the army has lost its once dominant behind-the-scenes role; the often trampled rights of Turkey's minority Kurdish population have been bolstered. Erdogan has also pushed hard to reunite the divided island of Cyprus through support for a United Nations peace plan that was rejected last month by Greek Cypriots.

In all this, he has shown himself responsive to European and American prodding. Colin Powell, the American secretary of state, wrote to the Turkish government in February, urging it to do more for judicial transparency. This month, he called Turkey a "very, very secular democracy" (after causing ire earlier by mistakenly labeling it an "Islamic republic").

But resistance to Turkey in Europe remains strong. Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, the former French president and overseer of efforts to draft a new EU constitution, declared in 2002 that Turkey's entry would mean "the end of Europe." Such views are widely shared, if seldom expressed so directly.

Turkey resides somewhere deep and ambivalent in the European psyche. It was against the westward pushing forces of the Ottoman empire and Islam that Europe long fought. The Ottoman army at the gates of Vienna, the centuries-long battle to put an end to Turkey-in-Europe - these events were marking.

The mingled minarets and church steeples of Bosnia are only the most obvious imprint of the Turkish presence.

Today, that presence is felt most immediately in the large number of Turkish immigrants in the EU, particularly in Germany. The specter of hordes of young Turks moving west troubles many people. Europe remains uncertain about how to integrate its growing Muslim population. The notion of the EU as some sort of Christian club has not been entirely lost. In such a club, of course, Turkey does not fit.

So, many Turks are skeptical. "Turkey is a big thing to swallow," said Lerzan Ozkale, a university professor. "I think the EU prefers us cooperating on the outside." Up to now, it is true, the EU has done well by tantalizing Turkey without admitting it.

But that game now looks exhausted. Turkey is impatient; a world of tensions between Islam and the West is watching. The country has much to offer the EU: its understanding of the Islamic world, its vitality, its large army, its geographic bridge.

Daniel Cohn-Bendit, the Green politician, spoke this month of the EU as a land of "miracles." The first two were Franco-German reconciliation and the fall of the Berlin Wall. The third, he suggested, could be Europe's rapprochement with the Muslim world through Turkish membership. He had a point. To close the EU to Turkey would be to look backward at a time when a troubling future must be confronted.

Berlin-Madrid-Paris

Zapatero is moving fast in international affair. After going first to Rabat, he went to Paris where the creation of a new Berlin-Madrid-Paris troika was announced. The participation of a middle size country might have a significant impact on European dynamics.

It has been officially said that Madrid will play a role in the relationships with the Magreb, that is with part of the Arab and Muslim world. Spain is in an excellent position to be a bridge between many worlds.

El País - Chirac anuncia la creación de un nuevo eje Berlín-Paris-Madrid

Chirac anuncia formalmente la creación de un nuevo eje Berlín-París-Madrid
España y Francia cooperarán para resolver en seis meses el conflicto del Sáhara

PERU EGURBIDE / ENVIADO ESPECIAL - París

EL PAÍS | España - 30-04-2004

El acercamiento de España al eje Berlín-París no es ya una colaboración ocasional ni una promesa de futuro, como podía deducirse de las palabras pronunciadas el miércoles en Berlín por el canciller alemán, Gerhard Schröder. El presidente de la República Francesa, Jacques Chirac, confirmó anoche en París que se ha puesto en marcha un auténtico eje Berlín-París-Madrid suficientemente estructurado y con voluntad de acción cotidiana. Una de sus consecuencias inmediatas será la cooperación hispano-francesa para resolver "en seis meses" el conflicto del Sáhara. Fue el presidente del Gobierno, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, quien habló del plazo de seis meses para resolver el conflicto del Sáhara, sorprendente si se tiene en cuenta que el contencioso entre Marruecos y el Frente Polisario, con Argelia en la retaguardia, data de los años setenta del siglo pasado. Francia y España han estado, además, tradicionalmente, en campos distintos de esta contienda. París ha apoyado siempre a Rabat, mientras que Madrid, desalojada de su ex colonia por la fuerza de la Marcha Verde, sustentaba más o menos abiertamente las tesis independentistas del Polisario.

Durante años, el Gobierno español ha defendido la necesidad de una solución aceptada por las dos partes, y eso es lo que sigue haciendo ahora, según expresó ayer Zapatero. Pero el nuevo presidente ve la posibilidad de cooperar con Francia en este campo, donde en el pasado reciente Madrid y París se habían mostrado en competencia, para alcanzar un acuerdo "que satisfará a todas las partes". "Es posible hacerlo en seis meses", añadió.

Chirac, por su parte, se mostró convencido de que España debe jugar un papel "eminente" en el Magreb y afirmó que, por lo que se refiere a esa región y, por tanto, al conflicto del Sáhara, París, Madrid y Berlín desarrollarán "una cooperación especialmente reforzada" en el seno del Consejo de Seguridad de Naciones Unidas.

"Eminente" es también el papel que, según Chirac, le va a corresponder a España en la construcción europea tras su incorporación inmediata al eje París-Berlín que, precisó el presidente galo, promueve una Europa "de paz y democracia, de desarrollo económico, pero también social, de un gran pacto social".

Chirac utilizó reiteradamente la expresión "la main dans la main [de la mano]", para describir la voluntad "muy fuerte de París y Berlín de avanzar con España en la ruta europea". "Hemos decidido una cooperación consciente y diaria entre nuestros colaboradores y autoridades para afrontar todos los problemas que se plantean".

El presidente francés se extendió en una larga explicación sobre cómo esa cooperación es posible y aconsejable. "El enfoque que hemos venido observando de la construcción europea defendido por el Gobierno José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero es el mismo que el de la mayor parte de los países europeos y, en particular, de Francia y Alemania. Eso no quiere decir que estemos de acuerdo en todo, pero si hay diferencias de enfoque, estamos determinados a trabajar juntos para reducirlas", expuso Chirac.

"También tenemos muchas diferencias de punto de vista con nuestros amigos alemanes, pero las superamos siempre, porque eso nos interesa más hacerlo", añadió. "El problema de la financiación de la UE es uno de ellos", prosiguió. "España tiene una posición optimista, que es la de la Comisión, y entendemos muy bien que España defienda sus intereses. Es completamente legítimo. Alemania y Francia, que son contribuyentes netos [al presupuesto comunitario] y tienen problemas financieros, ven con más reticencia el aumento del gasto, y es lógico".

"En esas circunstancias, se puede hacer dos cosas: reñir, lo que nunca trae nada bueno, o dialogar para encontrar una solución. Eso es lo que vamos a hacer, naturalmente", concluyó.

Zapatero confirmó, por otro lado, que su Gobierno "ha cambiado de posición" sobre el reparto de votos en el Consejo Europeo, ya que "ha aceptado el sistema de la doble mayoría" propuesto por Francia y Alemania. Pero declinó entrar en más detalles sobre la negociación ya iniciada para definir los criterios del nuevos sistema.

Zapatero tuvo palabras de especial agradecimiento a Francia, "al pueblo francés" y a sus gobernantes por la cooperación en la lucha contra ETA, que "es un buen ejemplo de lucha contra el terrorismo, el camino que hay que seguir", dijo, en contraposición implícitam con la invasión de Irak. "Hubiera debido yo mencionar el tema", le replicó Chirac, "pero me parece tan obvio que olvidé hacerlo. La colaboración contra el terrorismo y especialmente contra ETA es una posición firme y permanente del Gobierno francés".

Militants in Europe Openly Call for Jihad and the Rule of Islam

This New York Times story is about a small group of young Pakistani-British who have turned openly simpathetic to Al Qaeda. It evokes exactly what many Europeans fear most: that Muslim immigrants may become (or already are) "the Inside Enemy". This fear seems more acute in Europe than in the US.

By PATRICK E. TYLER
and DON VAN NATTA Jr.
LUTON, England, April 24 — The call to jihad is rising in the streets of Europe, and is being answered, counterterrorism officials say.
In this former industrial town north of London, a small group of young Britons whose parents emigrated from Pakistan after World War II have turned against their families' new home. They say they would like to see Prime Minister Tony Blair dead or deposed and an Islamic flag hanging outside No. 10 Downing Street.
They swear allegiance to Osama bin Laden and his goal of toppling Western democracies to establish an Islamic superstate under Shariah law, like Afghanistan under the Taliban. They call the Sept. 11 hijackers the "Magnificent 19" and regard the Madrid train bombings as a clever way to drive a wedge into Europe.
On Thursday evening, at a tennis center community hall in Slough, west of London, their leader, Sheik Omar Bakri Mohammad, spoke of his adherence to Osama bin Laden. If Europe fails to heed Mr. bin Laden's offer of a truce — provided that all foreign troops are withdrawn from Iraq in three months — Muslims will no longer be restrained from attacking the Western countries that play host to them, the sheik said.
"All Muslims of the West will be obliged," he said, to "become his sword" in a new battle. Europeans take heed, he added, saying, "It is foolish to fight people who want death — that is what they are looking for."
On working-class streets of old industrial towns like Crawley, Luton, Birmingham and Manchester, and in the Arab enclaves of Germany, France, Switzerland and other parts of Europe, intelligence officials say a fervor for militancy is intensifying and becoming more open.
In Hamburg, Dr. Mustafa Yoldas, the director of the Council of Islamic Communities, saw a correlation to the discord in Iraq. "This is a very dangerous situation at the moment," Dr. Yoldas said. "My impression is that Muslims have become more and more angry against the United States."
Hundreds of young Muslim men are answering the call of militant groups affiliated or aligned with Al Qaeda, intelligence and counterterrorism officials in the region say.
Even more worrying, said a senior counterterrorism official, is that the level of "chatter" — communications among people suspected of terrorism and their supporters — has markedly increased since Mr. bin Laden's warning to Europe this month. The spike in chatter has given rise to acute worries that planning for another strike in Europe is advanced.
"Iraq dramatically strengthened their recruitment efforts," one counterterrorism official said. He added that some mosques now display photos of American soldiers fighting in Iraq alongside bloody scenes of bombed out Iraqi neighborhoods. Detecting actual recruitments is almost impossible, he said, because it is typically done face to face.
And recruitment is paired with a compelling new strategy to bring the fight to Europe.
Members of Al Qaeda have "proven themselves to be extremely opportunistic, and they have decided to try to split the Western alliance," the official continued. "They are focusing their energies on attacking the big countries" — the United States, Britain and Spain — so as to "scare" the smaller states.
Some Muslim recruits are going to Iraq, counterterrorism officials in Europe say, but more are remaining home, possibly joining cells that could help with terror logistics or begin operations like the one that came to notice when the British police seized 1,200 pounds of ammonium nitrate, a key bomb ingredient, in late March, and arrested nine Pakistani-Britons, five of whom have been charged with trying to build a terrorist bomb.
Stoking that anger are some of the same fiery Islamic clerics who preached violence and martyrdom before the Sept. 11 attacks.
On Friday, Abu Hamza, the cleric accused of tutoring Richard Reid before he tried to blow up a Paris-to-Miami jetliner with explosives hidden in his shoe, urged a crowd of 200 outside his former Finsbury Park mosque to embrace death and the "culture of martyrdom."
Though the British home secretary, David Blunkett, has sought to strip Abu Hamza of his British citizenship and deport him, the legal battle has dragged on for years while Abu Hamza keeps calling down the wrath of God.
Also this week, over Mr. Blunkett's vigorous objection, a 35-year-old Algerian held under emergency laws passed after Sept. 11 was released from Belmarsh Prison. The man, identified only as "G," suffered from severe mental illness, his lawyers told a special immigration appeals panel, which let him out of prison and put him under house arrest.
Mr. Blunkett insisted that that should not be the final judgment on a man already found by one court "to be a threat to life and liberty."
In an interview on the BBC over the weekend, Mr. Blunkett advocated a stronger deportation policy, initially focused on 12 foreign terror suspects held without charge since the Sept. 11 attacks.
Despite tougher antiterrorism laws, the police, prosecutors and intelligence chiefs across Europe say they are struggling to contain the openly seditious speech of Islamic extremists, some of whom, they say, have been inciting young men to suicidal violence since the 1990's.
One chapter in Sheik Omar's lectures these days is "The Psyche of Muslims for Suicide Bombing."
The authorities say that laws to protect religious expression and civil liberties have the result of limiting what they can do to stop hateful speech. In the case of foreigners, they say they are often left to seek deportation, a lengthy and uncertain process subject to legal appeals, when the suspect can keep inciting attacks.
That leaves the authorities to resort to less effective means, such as mouse-trapping Islamic radicals with immigration violations in hopes of making a deportation case stick. "In many countries, the laws are liberal and it's not easy," an official said.
At a mosque in Geneva, an imam recently exhorted his followers to "impose the will of Islam on the godless society of the West."
"It was quite virulent," said a senior official with knowledge of the sermon. "The imam was encouraging his followers to take over the godless society."
While such a sermon may be incitement, recruitment takes a more shadowy course, and is hard to detect, a senior antiterrorism official said. "Believers are appealed to in the mosques, but the real conversations take place in restaurants or cafes or private apartments," the official said.
While some clerics, like Abu Qatada — said to be the spiritual counselor of Mohamed Atta, who led the Sept. 11 hijacking team — remain in prison in Britain without charge, others like Sheik Omar, leader of a movement called Al Muhajiroun, carry on a robust ideological campaign.
"There is no case against me," Sheik Omar said in an interview. Referring to calls by members of Parliament that he be deported, he added, "but they are Jewish" and "they have been calling for that for years."
Among his ardent followers is Ishtiaq Alamgir, 24, who heads Al Muhajiroun in Luton and calls himself Sayful Islam, the sword of Islam. He says there are about 50 members here but exact numbers are secret.
Most days, he and a handful of his followers run a recruitment stand on Dunstable Road much to the chagrin of the Muslim elders of Luton.
Mainstream Muslims are outraged by the situation, saying the actions of a few are causing their communities to be singled out for surveillance and making the larger population distrustful of them.
Muhammad Sulaiman, a stalwart of the mainstream Central Mosque here, was penniless when he arrived from the Kashmiri frontier of Pakistan in 1956. He raised money to build the Central Mosque here and now leads a campaign to ban Al Muhajiroun radicals from the city's 10 mosques.
"This is show-off business," he says in accented English. "I don't want these kids in my mosque."
Other community leaders look to the government to do something, if only to help prevent the demonization of British Muslims, or "Islamophobia," as some here call it.
"I think these kids are being brainwashed by a few radical clerics," said Akhbar Dad Khan, another elder of the Central Mosque. He wants them prosecuted or deported. "We should be able to control this negativity," he said.
In Slough, Sheik Omar spent much of his time Thursday night regaling his young followers with the erotic delights of paradise — sweet kisses and the pleasures of bathing with scores of women — while he also preached the virtues of death in Islamic struggle as a ticket to paradise.
He spoke of terrorism as the new norm of cultural conflict, "the fashion of the 21st century," practiced as much by Tony Blair as by Al Qaeda.
"We may be caught up in the target as the people of Manhattan were," he told them.
And he warned Western leaders, "You may kill bin Laden, but the phenomenon, you cannot kill it — you cannot destroy it."
"Our Muslim brothers from abroad will come one day and conquer here and then we will live under Islam in dignity," he said.

Patrick E. Tyler reported from Luton, Slough and London and Don Van Natta Jr. from London. Souad Mekhennet contributed reporting from Germany.

Antwerp: the next target for terrorist attack?

Here are a few different newspapers spinning the same story: the Arabic European League (AEL)--lots of membership in Belgium and Netherlands--has "warned" traders in Antwerp that they could be the next target of a terrorist attacks.

The majority of traders in Antwerp are Jewish with strong ties to Israel.

Newspaper accounts differ from calling it "Islamic fundamentalist threat" to "Hamas" to a general "terrorism threat"

This was an aspect I didn't expect to cover in Antwerp initially, but from my reporting there, tensions at the business person-to-person level between Muslims and Jews was very little. But so is the interaction. The majority of traders are Hindu, not Muslim. Though these supposed threats are not from the immediate community.

For the most part, people felt (obviously i'm not there now) very safe and had little to say about March 11. September 11, was tragic, they said, but far away.

This is a blurb from a diamond industry trade magazine published by the International Diamond Exchange.
Antwerp's diamond traders fear terror attacks
http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=24&story_id=6478

This is the belgium expats mag's take
Antwerp Security Tightened Following Threats
http://www.idexonline.com/start.asp

Reuters
Belgium Investigates Email Threats Against Jews
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=4794541

Israeli news
Belgian Jews Threatened By Euro-Arab League
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=60711

Antwerp Security Tightened Following Threats
(April 8, '04, 10:56 Edahn Golan)

Antwerp police has beefed up security after the Arab European League (AEL) said it could become a target of a Hamas terrorist attack if the local Jewish community did not denounce Israel and its policies.

Ahmed Azzuz, the AEL's local leader, was quoted in an interview saying Hamas planned to attack foreign targets following the assassination of Sheik Ahmed Yassin adding that Antwerp was an “obvious target”.

“The diamond sector openly supports the Zionist regime,” Azzuz said in the interview, adding, “Every year 200 Belgian-Israeli reservists leave for Israel to kill innocent civilians”.

The Diamond High Council (HRD) has filed a complaint against the AEL, accusing the group of “intimidation” and “threatening behavior”.

“It is the first time the diamond sector has been named as a target in such an explicit manner,” HRD Managing Director Peter Meeus told Reuters.

Antwerp's diamond traders fear terror attacks

BRUSSELS - Businesses in Antwerp's famous diamond traders' district fear they could soon be targeted by an Islamic fundamentalist terror attack, the Belgian press reported on Thursday.

The majority of Antwerp's diamond traders are Jewish. They say have been particularly concerned since the Arab European League (AEL) warned they could be considered a terrorist target.

"Ever since the AEL made its statements, we have obviously been asking ourselves questions," diamond industry spokesman Peter Meeus told La Libre Belgique.

"The quarter was already targeted in 1981, when terrorists attacked a Portuguese synagogue," he added.

Meeus wants the Belgian government to step up even further the already tight security measures in place in the diamond sellers quarter, which is near to Antwerp's main station.

The AEL insisted that it was not trying to threaten Antwerp's diamond traders but warn them.

"We want to warn Antwerp's Jewish community in its entirety to be on its guard. The community's support for Israel is no secret," Ahmed Azzuz, head of the AEL in Belgium told La Libre Belgique.

"It could therefore be targeted because of its support for Zionism, in the same way that innocent people in Spain paid for their leaders' pro-American policies during the war in Iraq.

"We are not anti-Semitic. It is recent events that have led us to sound the alarm bell," he added.

Belgium Investigates Email Threats Against Jews
ANTWERP, Belgium (Reuters) - Belgium is investigating a series of e-mail threats against the local Jewish community to avenge Israeli attacks against the Palestinian militant group Hamas, a spokeswoman said on Friday.
Investigators were looking into the e-mails sent to the prime minister's office and several newspapers that threatened attacks on Jews in the northern port city of Antwerp.

"We have opened a file and we are checking it out," Lieve Pellens, spokeswoman for the federal prosecutor's office, said.

"We don't really give it that much importance," she said, adding the office received such reports regularly.

The daily Gazet Van Antwerpen reported that e-mails sent on April 1 threatened to attack the Jewish community, as well as buses, trams, and shops.

The messages contained the name of Abdelkarim el Mejjati, suspected of being one of the masterminds behind the Madrid train bombings that killed 191 people, it said.

Mejjati is also suspected of being the operational leader of the Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group, which investigators blame for last year's bombings in Casablanca.

Gazet Van Antwerpen said the e-mails carried the mobile phone number of a group of Cameroon students. The newspaper contacted the students who denied any knowledge of the threats.

Antwerp is the world's largest diamond distribution center and many members of the port city's orthodox Jewish community of about 20,000 work in the business.

Earlier this week, the diamond sector called for extra security after a local Arab militant group said the industry could be attacked by Islamic militants if the Jewish community did not denounce Israeli policies against Palestinians.

Antwerp police say they have increased protection.

Israel killed the wheelchair-bound Hamas founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin in a helicopter strike on March 22, accusing him of being behind suicide bombings in the Jewish state.

Since the start of the latest Palestinian uprising in 2000, Belgian Jews have complained of a rise in anti-Semitic violence and virulent anti-Israeli propaganda.

Belgian Jews Threatened By Euro-Arab League 15:13 Apr 09, '04 / 18 Nisan 5764
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=60711

Belgium's Jews, in particular Antwerp's Jewish diamond merchants, have been put on notice by the Arab European League (AEL).

"We want to warn Antwerp's Jewish community in its entirety to be on its guard. The community's support for Israel is no secret," Ahmed Azzuz, head of the AEL in Belgium told the Belgian newspaper La Libre Belgique.

"The AEL calls on the Jewish community in Antwerp to cease its support of, and distance itself from, the state of Israel. If not, attacks in Antwerp are almost unpreventable," Azzuz had earlier told the Belgian Flemish magazine Knack, adding, "Every year, 200 Belgian-Israeli reservists leave for Israel to kill innocent civilians."

According to an Israel Channel 1 television report, the Jewish community is taking the threats seriously, and has already contacted elected Jewish officials, the local police and the nation's justice minister. A member of the Belgian diamond merchant's community interviewed on the program confirmed reports that members of the Jewish community are afraid and at present, refrain from being outdoors during the nighttime hours.

Peter Meeus reminded La Libre Belgique, "The quarter was already targeted in 1981, when terrorists attacked a Portuguese synagogue."

The AEL's Azzuz insisted in the media that his statements were not threats.

A spokeswoman for Antwerp police said rigorous security measures had already been introduced.

French right oppose's Turkey's candidacy

In France, the President's party has decided to publicly oppose Turkey's candidacy to the EU. The official position, which is that of the Union, is a "technical" one: if Turkey complies with the crtieria applied to all the others by the end of 2004, negotiations will start.

The French right is now saying that Europe needs to fix its "limits" and that accepting Turkey would "change its nature." Valery Giscard d'Estain, an ex-president who recently headed the process for drafting a constitution has the same position. It is a point of agreement with the extreme right and they want to make it an issue during the coming European election. It goes along the lines of those who in several European countires (Germany and Denmark, among others) insist on the "Christian" nature of Europe.

Some people on the left (Balibar among them) think that the richness of Europe comes from its inherent and historical diversity, but opposing Turkey's entry plays with powerful racist feelings that can be found accross the political spectrum. The issue is essential for the evolution of the EU, for the definition of Europe's identity, and for its relations with the Muslim world.

Le Monde

La droite française remet en question un engagement historique de l'Europe vis-à-vis de la Turquie

LE MONDE | 09.04.04 | 14h34

L'UMP entre en opposition avec le président de la République sur la candidature d'Ankara à l'Union. La "vocation européenne" de la Turquie avait été reconnue par de Gaulle en 1963
Le ministre des affaires étrangères français, Michel Barnier, a dû faire une mise au point, jeudi 8 avril, à propos des relations de la Turquie avec l'Union européenne : "La ligne de la France reste la même", a-t-il dit, après qu'Alain Juppé eut pris, la veille, le contre-pied de la politique officielle française en contestant, au nom de l'UMP, la vocation européenne de ce pays. A l'Elysée, on appuyait, jeudi, les déclarations de M. Barnier, en confirmant que la position de la France n'avait pas changé, et restait "celle que le président n'a cessé de répéter ces dernières années".

Le parti de la majorité est donc entré en opposition avec le président de la République et le gouvernement, sur une question qui promet de devenir l'un des sujets sensibles du débat préélectoral. Même si l'on fait valoir, à l'Elysée, que "chacun est dans son rôle" et qu'il ne s'agit là que du "jeu démocratique" normal, il est peu probable que les électeurs s'y retrouvent.

On sentait à vrai dire depuis quelque temps que la question turque posait quelques problèmes à la droite française. La perspective d'une adhésion, même lointaine, de la Turquie à l'ensemble européen est en effet contestée dans son principe sur deux fronts : par les droites extrémistes et souverainistes, décidées à en faire un de leurs thèmes de mobilisation pour les élections européennes, mais aussi par des milieux proeuropéens, notamment à l'UDF. Des hommes comme Valéry Giscard d'Estaing ou Jean-Louis Bourlanges se sont affichés comme farouchement opposés à l'entrée de la Turquie dans l'Union.

En estimant, mercredi, qu'il faut fixer des limites à l'Union sous peine de la "dénaturer" et que la Turquie ne doit pas être dedans, Alain Juppé reprend les arguments de ces derniers. Il a reconnu qu'il avait "évolué" sur le sujet, et c'est peu dire.

M. Juppé, lorsqu'il était minis- tre des affaires étrangères, avait en effet activement défendu une vision stratégique des relations avec la Turquie : sa démocratisation, le rapprochement de ce grand pays musulman avec l'Europe pouvaient avoir un effet stabilisateur dans la région, et l'Europe avait tout à y gagner. Alain Juppé a été l'artisan de l'accord d'union douanière de 1995, qui faisait de la Turquie le pays non membre le plus étroitement associé à l'Europe. Il eut à le défendre contre la Grèce, contre une partie des députés européens, contre les socialistes français qui s'enflammaient soudain de compassion pour les Kurdes maltraités.

Ce n'était certes qu'un accord d'union douanière. Mais dès lors, et depuis l'arrivée de Jacques Chirac à l'Elysée, la France est considérée par les Turcs tournés vers l'Europe comme leur meilleur soutien dans l'Union. Cette idylle n'a connu que quelques incidents de parcours sans lendemain, quand les parlementaires français s'emparaient de la question du génocide arménien.

A de multiples reprises ces dernières années, Jacques Chirac a rappelé sa position invariable, la dernière fois avec peut-être un peu plus de prudence, lors du Conseil européen du 26 mars : "Les efforts de la Turquie en vue d'intégrer toutes les règles de la démocratie et de l'économie de marché sont indiscutables, a dit le président. C'est le rapport de la Commission -attendu pour octobre- qui nous permettra de décider s'il y a lieu ou non d'engager des négociations, qui seront longues, pour son adhésion."

La question qui est posée est donc de savoir si les changements introduits par la Turquie dans sa législation sont suffisants pour satisfaire aux normes européennes, et s'ils sont effectivement mis en œuvre dans la pratique. Pour les autorités françaises, c'est une question "technique". Aucune question de principe ne se pose en revanche sur la "vocation européenne" de la Turquie, sur sa légitimité à intégrer à terme, même si c'est dans longtemps, l'ensemble européen.

C'est sur ce point qu'Alain Juppé a rompu, mercredi, avec la position officielle.

Le débat sur la Turquie n'est pas propre à la France. Le chancelier Kohl avait en son temps mis les pieds dans le plat en faisant référence à l'héritage chrétien de l'Europe ; l'Union chrétienne-démocrate (CDU) lui emboîte le pas aujourd'hui, de même que d'autres démocrates-chrétiens et diverses extrêmes droites européennes, notamment au Danemark. Mais la position officielle de la France ne lui est pas propre non plus : c'est la position officielle de l'Union.

Ce qui fait la particularité de la Turquie dans le débat sur "les limites de l'Europe" c'est, plus que sa petite partie de territoire située en Europe continentale, l'engagement historique qu'avaient pris envers elle de Gaulle et Adenauer en 1963, impulsant un accord d'association qui proclamait la "vocation européenne" de ce pays. Pendant de longues années, l'évolution politique tourmentée de la Turquie a épargné aux Européens d'avoir à se préoccuper de cette promesse ; la Turquie n'était pas même reconnue comme pays candidat.

C'est en 1999, au sommet d'Helsinki qui trace les grandes lignes de l'élargissement jusqu'en 2005, qu'Ankara se voit reconnaître le statut de candidat. Le texte d'Helsinki est sans ambiguïté sur le fond : "La Turquie, dit ce texte, est un pays candidat, qui a vocation à rejoindre l'Union" quand il aura rempli les critères de conformité définis en 1993 à Copenhague. En 2002, lors d'un autre sommet à Copenhague, les Quinze font un grand pas de plus vers Ankara. Si la Turquie répond aux critères fin 2004 (ce sera l'objet du rapport de la Commission en octobre), "l'Union ouvrira avec elle des négociations d'adhésion", déclare le sommet dans ses conclusions.

Claire Tréan

• ARTICLE PARU DANS L'EDITION DU 10.04.04

A Spanish philosopher on secularism

This is an interesting Op-ed on "secularism" (laicism) from Fernando Savater a Spanish philosopher and writer. He develops "five theses" that deserve a close reading from those working on this issue.

An imperfect summary of the most relevant points could be:

Minarets Rise in Germany

A surge in the building of mosques is another sign of the transforming power of immigration. But the Islamic centers of faith also prompt fear.
By Jeffrey Fleishman
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
March 17, 2004
(Interesting story dealing with Turkey, immigration, and the impact
of Islam on national identities)

BERLIN — The chink and scrape of stonecutters echo through the gray-domed mosque that rises like a glimmer of misplaced architecture in a city where the Muslim call to prayer is a widening whisper.

Dusted in marble, workmen scurry in the muted glow of stained glass. Some paint Koranic verses on the walls; others make last-minute alterations to golden-tipped minarets pricking a drizzly skyline. Anxious Berliners sometimes peek into the courtyard, where Ali Gulcek, a husky, nimble man, assures them his religion is not a threat.

"I need to enlighten the Germans so their prejudice of Islam will go away," said Gulcek, whose Islamic organization is building the mosque. "Our mosque will be completed in May. We've wanted a legitimate mosque for so long. For years, we've been meeting in backyards and basements. We don't want to hide anymore."

Gulcek's mosque is part of the surge in Islamic construction sweeping Germany. The number of traditional mosques with their distinctive minarets nearly doubled in Germany from 77 in 2002 to 141 in 2003, according to Islam Archive, a Muslim research group in the city of Soest. An additional 154 mosques and cultural centers are planned, many of them in the countryside, where vistas are dotted with symbols of crescent moons and crosses.

Like the cultural battles over allowing Muslim women to wear headscarves in European schools, mosques are an indication that immigration is transforming social, religious and aesthetic landscapes. Staccato Turkish and throaty Arabic syllables whirl amid European vernaculars, and where once there was a German bakery there is now a Moroccan kebab stand. In some bookshops, the Koran is as prominent as the Bible, and Islamic worry beads sometimes rattle alongside rosaries.

Mosques are landmarks of faith. But in Europe they are also symbols of change that can instigate fear, especially as congregations at Christian churches steadily decline on a continent with the fastest-aging population in the world. A mosque often means a neighborhood is no longer what it was. Skin hues are darker, customs different, and society's failure at integration is laid bare.

For many Europeans since Sept. 11, mosques are perceived — unlike churches or synagogues — as caldrons of radicalism instead of places of worship. That sentiment is likely to endure if Islamic militants were involved last week's train bombings in Madrid that killed 201 people and wounded 1,500 others.

"Building a mosque won't create integration," said Werner Mueller, a pharmacist in a Berlin neighborhood where proposals for two mosques are encountering opposition from government agencies. "These new mosques will make Islam more visible, and jobless and angry Muslim men will go to them. They can become places infiltrated by political Islam."

Such sensitivity stems from the Al Quds mosque's link to Sept. 11: Mohamed Atta and other hijackers had regularly worshipped at the warren of rooms above a gym with smudged windows in Hamburg before they moved to the United States. Thousands of nondescript mosques, some tucked in alleys, others half-hidden in old factories, are scattered across Europe. There are nearly 2,400 in Germany alone, according to the Islam Archive.

The Berlin government is seeking more control over blueprints for larger mosques. The city's planning office wants veto power on all building projects that may impinge upon a borough's character. The veto proposal is expected to take effect this year and could complicate plans for four mosques in the city boroughs of Kreuzberg and Neukoelln. The government says it is not singling out mosques, but trying to bring uniformity to the skyline.

"Berlin has a large Turkish population," said Petra Reetz, a spokeswoman for the planning office. "That always has to be a consideration. But we are still a Central European town and we'd like to keep the face of a Central European town, not a Turkish town."

Such sentiments have made Mehmet Bayram a patient architect. The projects he treasures most, including mosques and Islamic cultural centers, are yet to be built, tangled in negotiations with government agencies. Bayram splices architecture, folding Islamic nuances into European designs to make Muslim edifices more palatable to the German eye. What could be considered minarets on the facade of one of his proposed cultural centers, for example, are instead spiraling stairwells.

Bayram described one project like this: "The main entrance gate has a European style, and on the third floor you will find Gothic arches. That is Christian architecture. The dome has a Turkish-Seldshuk form, and the little arches at the upper minarets are of Indian style…. It is my intent that the building's street level invites visitors to overcome their fears" about Islam.

Gulcek's mosque is being built south of the city center by the Turkish Islamic Union, one of several Islamic organizations in Germany overseeing construction plans for such projects. Most of Germany's 3 million Turks — the nation's largest minority — belong to the lineage of guest workers who began arriving here in the 1950s to fuel post-World War II reconstruction. This history has made the Turks more entrenched and better organized to finance and build mosques than newly arrived Muslims in other European nations.

Gulcek, a German citizen, moved to Berlin with his parents 24 years ago from the Turkish city of Kayseri. One recent day, as rain fell and the stonecutters sipped tea, Gulcek walked through the courtyard of the new mosque, where a cemetery faced Mecca and the hum of traffic drifted over the surrounding brick wall.

"It's taken 13 years to build," said Gulcek, a smiling, yet exasperated, diplomat of sorts between cultures. "The biggest problem was raising money from Berlin Muslims. Then we found out our minarets were too high, and we had to raise more money for a $100,000 fine from the borough. Why? It came down to a misunderstanding. We didn't know about German law, and the borough didn't tell us.

"It was difficult to explain our idea of the mosque to the Germans. We should have explained it better," he said. "If you communicate, there are fewer problems, but there always seems to be a lace curtain between Germans and Muslims. Europeans have a prejudice and a fear of change."

Communication often seems impossible. Mosque proposals throughout the continent have met with opposition petition drives and street protests. Many mosques and their Islamic clergy exist in parallel, almost sequestered spheres from the larger European community.

"The main problem with integrating mosques into German society is that many mullahs and imams are coming from Egypt, Saudi Arabia and other Islamic countries," said Lydia Nofal, manager of Inssan, a multicultural organization battling with government agencies to build a 65,000-square-foot mosque and community center in Berlin. "One of our main goals is to get Islamic leaders from Germany so they know the language and the culture."

Navigating the sensitivities of race and religion can be difficult. On Sunday mornings, church bells peal throughout Europe's towns and cities. But in many mosques, the Muslim call to prayer, which in the Middle East crackles over loudspeakers atop minarets, is almost hushed. The devout check their watches for prayer times, and quietly kneel.

The mosque building boom, mirroring the growth of an Islamic population in Europe that has doubled over the last decade to between 13 million and 15 million, may be most pronounced in Germany. But France, home to Europe's largest Islamic community, has 49 traditional mosques, including nine large ones in Paris. The estimated number of mosques in Britain — most of them converted buildings, apartments or prayer rooms with no minarets — has jumped from 613 in 1996 to about 1,000 today.

In Berlin's Kreuzberg borough, on a street scented with skewered lamb and spices and flecked with women wearing head scarves, Heidemarie Weigand and her husband, Hans-Juergen, were having a going-out-of-business sale at their toy train store. Heidemarie said her old customers had died or moved away and few newcomers were buying engines and cabooses these days.

"There's so many Turkish faces. There are hardly any Germans here, and the foreigners have no use for trains," said Heidemarie, her graying hair brushed back over a mauve sweater. "Many Germans aren't happy about the mosques. I don't think Turkey would like it if we went there and built a bunch of Christian churches."

A few doors down, Burhan Kesici, a soft-spoken man with a round face and a thin beard, sat in a green leather chair and spoke of the mosques his Islamic Federation in Berlin hoped to build. He believes in integration, he said, and even went against the wishes of his Turkish parents and wife by becoming a German citizen. Kesici understands the sensitivities that arise as Islamic culture deepens its imprint on Europe.

"There are a lot of new Islamic projects in the Kreuzberg-Neukoelln area," Kesici said. "The Germans may be saying, 'This is dangerous for us. There's too much of a concentration of religion in a small area.' But we Muslims have to be seen as normal. The mosques will allow us to show ourselves off better to society. We can help with the crime and social problems in these neighborhoods."

The Islamic Federation represents 26 Islamic organizations and 12 of Berlin's 75 mosques — only three of which have minarets. The federation, Kesici said, is in the midst of tedious negotiations with Kreuzberg borough on the design of a $4.9-million mosque and community center project. The government wants the federation to shrink the mosque by 40% so it will not overwhelm the neighborhood.

"The world is changing," said Kesici, who has a political science degree from the Free University of Berlin. "The European Union is expanding, and people are living with different cultures. I am a German and a Muslim. But the head scarf and mosque issues are showing us they don't want to accept our values. They're saying, 'You can be German, but a second-class German.' "

Kesici's dream mosque, designed by architect Bayram, may remain a blueprint for several more years. Gulcek's mosque is stone and steel and colored-glass reality. It will open in two months. Christians and Jews and even secularists will be invited.

"Fifty years ago when the Turks first came," Gulcek said, "they went from their dormitory to the job and back to their dormitory. They would never have imagined that one day a mosque would be built here. And now Turkish businessmen have German employees. So I can imagine that in another 50 years names like Ahmed and Mehmet may sound natural to the German ear and one day may be even sitting in Parliament."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Times staff writers Petra Falkenberg in Berlin and Achrene Sicakyuz in Paris and special correspondent Bruce Wallace in London contributed to this report.

Wounds still raw

Even before the Madrid attacks, and despite hints that US-EU relations were starting to thaw, global public opinion voiced increasing distrust of the United States.

According to a recent poll conducted by the Pew Research Center in association with the International Herald Tribune, nearly a third of respondents in Turkey thought that suicide bombings against Americans and other Westerners in Iraq was justifiable.

Support for the U.S. since the "end" of Iraq war continues to drop in Britain, France and Germany and nearly 60 percent of Brits responded that they had mistrust for Uncle Sam.

Americans, however, still think that they are merely viewed as misunderstood crusaders for good, and 70 percent believe the U.S. considers other countries' interests. American opinion of the French and Germans have even improved slightly since the end of the war.

But with Rodriguez Zapatero's strong stand and move back toward Europe the unilateral approach the Bush administration took seems to be pretty cold. The survey found that the majority of respondents in Britain, Germany and France (in, as can be expected, ascending order) believe Europe should be more independent.

These sentiments have led to increasing support, it appears, to make the EU as powerful as the U.S., and perhaps, the establishment of its constitution.

International Herald Tribune - European distrust of U.S. role sharpens

European distrust of U.S. role sharpens

Meg Bortin/IHT IHT
Wednesday, March 17, 2004

'No healing of the wounds' a year after Iraq war, global survey finds
 
PARIS One year after the war in Iraq, European distrust of the United States has intensified, with sharp doubts among America's closest allies of the Bush administration's motives in the war on terror, a global opinion survey has found.

The poll of more than 7,500 people in nine countries, conducted in late February and early March by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center, before the bombings in Spain, showed that anger toward America is still fierce in Muslim countries, too, 12 months after the war began.

Resentment is so strong that majorities in three Muslim countries surveyed - Jordan, Pakistan and Morocco - feel that suicide bombings against Americans and other Westerners in Iraq are justifiable.

The poll, carried out in association with the International Herald Tribune, found that even in Turkey, an American partner in NATO, 31 percent felt such attacks were justifiable.

Still more worrisome perhaps for Washington in an election year, however, the trans-Atlantic confidence gap has deepened since a Pew survey carried out in the immediate aftermath of the war, when public ire over the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was still hot in Europe.

"There has been no healing of the wounds," said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center in Washington.

Unfavorable opinion of the United States, which skyrocketed in the run-up to the war, has become still more negative in France, Germany and Britain since President George W. Bush declared hostilities over in May, the survey found.

British views in particular are more critical, with a 12 percent slide in favorable opinion of the United States. The decrease, from 70 percent last May to 58 percent now, "reflects dropping support for the war" in Britain, Kohut said.

In France, favorable views dropped to 37 percent from 43 percent in May; in Germany positive opinion fell to 38 percent from 45 percent 10 months ago.

Majorities in the three countries - historically Washington's closest NATO partners - also said that as a consequence of the war they had less confidence that the United States is trustworthy. Mistrust was expressed by 82 percent in Germany, 78 percent in France and 58 percent in Britain.

According to François Heisbourg, director of the Foundation for Strategic Research in Paris, alienation is increasing in Europe "because there's been no give on the Bush side."

"There is a widespread perception in Europe that we have the choice of being treated as a vassal - a poodle in the case of Britain - or being treated as an antagonist," Heisbourg said.

As grounds for resentment, he cited continuing American neglect of European sentiment on issues ranging from the Kyoto Protocol on the environment to the treatment of prisoners at the U.S. naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. In France, he noted, anger flared anew recently when the State Department came out against the banning of the Islamic head scarf in French schools.

The survey results also indicate that there has been no rebound among America's allies of post-Sept. 11 sympathy for the United States, which dissipated in the glare of European disapproval during the build-up to war.

Quite the contrary: Majorities in France, Germany, Russia, Turkey, Pakistan, Jordan and Morocco said they thought the U.S.-led war on terrorism was not sincere. Instead, most said it was an effort "to control Mideast oil" or "to dominate the world." Even in Britain only the slimmest majority - 51 percent - viewed the war on terror as sincere.

In fact, people in many countries were dismissive of U.S. attitudes toward the threat of international terrorism.

While fully 84 percent of Americans questioned said the United States was right to be concerned, majorities in France and the four Muslim countries in the survey - Turkey, Pakistan, Jordan and Morocco - said America was overreacting.

Kohut said the survey results might have differed had the question been asked after the March 11 carnage in Spain.

William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard and a strong supporter of the war on terrorism, said the Madrid attacks "could even widen the rift."

Kristol cited remarks this week by Romano Prodi, president of the European Commission, that the U.S. approach to fighting terrorism had failed, and added: "If that's going to be the European conclusion of the past two and a half years, I think Americans, and not just Bush, are going to reject that."

In foreign policy in general, the view that the United States acts unilaterally is more widespread now than at the war's end, the survey found.

In France, 84 percent said they felt the United States did not take their country's interests into account in international policy decisions, up from 76 percent last May. Similar strong feelings were expressed in Turkey (79 percent), Jordan (77 percent), Russia (73 percent), and Germany (69 percent).

In contrast, 70 percent of Americans surveyed felt that the United States takes other countries' interests into account.

"Americans think we're cooperative and popular," Kohut said of the perception gap. "Americans think, 'We're the ones on the white horse who do good things for the planet, like dealing with terrorism and evil dictators, and we're misunderstood.'"

The trans-Atlantic chasm in thinking translated into desire in Europe for looser ties with the United States in security and diplomatic affairs, the survey found. Majorities in France (75 percent), Germany (63 percent), Turkey (60 percent) and Britain (56 percent) said Europe should be more independent.

Majorities in the five European countries in the survey - Britain, France, Germany, Russia and Turkey - said it would be a good thing if the European Union became as powerful as the United States. In France, 90 percent expressed this view.

European dislike of President George W. Bush, too, has not diminished. Majorities in every country surveyed expressed unfavorable views, with negative opinion of Bush in France and Germany - 85 percent - higher than in Muslim countries like Pakistan and Turkey.

"I think what has hurt Bush the most, both in Europe and the United States, is his failure to explain why no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq," Kristol said. "We're paying a real price for that."

Most people questioned in the survey said they felt that Bush and Tony Blair, the British prime minister, had lied about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to have a pretext for war.

Only in the United States and Britain did a majority say their leaders had been misinformed by bad intelligence, and even there sizable minorities said the two leaders had lied: 31 percent in the United States and 41 percent in Britain.

Meanwhile, Osama bin Laden is still viewed as a hero in parts of the Muslim world. Sixty-five percent in Pakistan and 55 percent in Jordan expressed favorable views of the Qaeda leader. In Turkey, however, 75 percent expressed unfavorable views.

As for American attitudes, the anger felt toward the "coalition of the unwilling" - notably France and Germany - has subsided slightly since the war's end, but is still strong.

Thirty-three percent in the United States now express favorable views of France, up from 29 percent in May; 50 percent hold positive views of Germany, up from 44 percent. Enthusiasm for Britain is declining, however, with 73 percent now holding favorable views, down from 82 percent in May.

Given the intense media coverage of the Iraq war and the resulting tensions between the United States and Europe, another surprising finding is that 7 percent of Americans surveyed have never heard of the European Union. That figure, however, is an improvement since early September 2001, when one-fifth of Americans surveyed - 20 percent - said they had never heard of the allied bloc across the Atlantic.

International Herald Tribune

Copyright © 2003 The International Herald Tribune

11-M will change Europe (and its relation with the US)

In the same way as 9/11 has changed the US, 11-M (March 11th) will change Europe (and its relation with the US.) Our class must pay very close attention to this event and its consequences.

First, there are signs that it may contribute to bring people closer on an emotional basis. "Nobody thinks that it's Spain that has been attacked," a Parisian friend told me over the phone.

Several European head of government took part in the gigantic march held in Madrid's street to denounce terrorism. Romano Prodi, Jean-Pierre Raffarin, Silvio Berlusconi, José Manuel Durão Barroso were there, as were prominent members from several governments, Joschka Fischer among others. Denis MacShane, British Secretary of State for European Affairs declared to El País: "It's the first time I have seen all Europe united, left and right, in an expression of total solidarity in front of the third historic totalitarism after Communism and Fascism."

In front of the attack, many Europeans turn to Europe and 11-M might contribute to the emergence of a more tightly woven European identity. If ETA was to be recognized as the perpetrator, it might be seen as a horrendous local Spanish affair. But an attack by Al Qaeda is seen as an attack against Europe. Germany has already called for an urgent reassessment of European security in front of what is seen as a "terrorist threat against Europe."

Second, this attack will affect the US-EU relationships. On one hand, Europeans should become more sensitive to Washington's call to fight terrorism world wide. On the other, it is significant that Spanish voters dismissed the government that brought Spanish soldiers into Iraq. After Schroeder's victory in Germany last year on the basis of his opposition to the war, it is the second government elected by Europeans opposed to Bush's policy.

Finally Bin Laden has just proven that he holds the capacity to affect the course of elections in major democratic countries. It has happened in Spain. It could happen in the United States.

"Given what is known from the strikes that continue to be mounted in other parts of the world, it seems likely that al Qaeda and its affiliates still command the resources and manpower necessary for conducting a major attack in the United States," wrote John Arquilla (who will come and visit us on April 20th) in an article published in the San Francisco Chronicle on February 1st.

Will Al Qaeda do it? Asked Arquilla and his answer was: "The outcome of the November election hinges on the answer."

San Francisco Chronicle – Will Osama rock the vote?

Most Turks Want to join EU

Seven out of 10 Turks support joining the Europpean Union and the country's politicians say there's never been a "broader political consensus toward EU membership." The thought in Turkey is that joining the EU would "cement Turkey's secularism and raise incomes, which now stand at about one-quarter the average level of the Union," according to the International Herald Tribune article. But doing so won't be easy as they need all 25 EU members' votes. And France may be shakey while the other "heavyweights" like Germany, Britan, Italy and Spain appear to be in favor of at least negotiations.

I think this is interesting because as Turkey and its 70 million and growing Muslim population look to boost its economy and status as a secular state, it may solicit the US's support in gaining entry to the EU. And if the EU decides against letting Turkey negotiate its entry at the December summit, the rejection could have some interesting political implications. As Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul said in an interview, "all the Muslim world will once more think that, yes, there is a double standard, that there will always be a clash of civilizations."

"In Turkey, a pro-EU consensus" by Thomas Fuller
International Herald Tribune

Copyright © 2002 The International Herald Tribune | www.iht.com

In Turkey, a pro-EU consensus
Thomas Fuller/IHT IHT
Saturday, March 6, 2004

7 out of 10 favor joining the Union

ANKARA At a time of relative gloom and uncertainty for the European Union, some of its most enthusiastic supporters live here in Asia.

In Western Europe, a creeping note of worry has accompanied the imminent expansion of the Union to 25 members. But here in Turkey, politicians say there has never been broader political consensus on the drive toward EU membership.

Joining is seen as a way to cement Turkey's secularism and raise incomes, which now stand at about one-quarter the average level of the Union.

In opinion polls, nearly 70 percent of Turks say they want to join the EU, a number whose corollary is the government's methodical passage of reform packages required for EU membership.

The government begins every weekly cabinet meeting with an hourlong discussion on the implementation of EU-related laws, according to Murat Sungar, secretary general of a special government department that coordinates Turkey's drive for membership.

Since 2001, Turkey has rewritten more than one-fifth of its constitution. It abolished the death penalty except for times of war, repealed laws that barred the Kurdish minority from assembling or publishing in their language, and passed a law that prevents the press from being forced to reveal sources, among many other changes.

Reforms scheduled for April will remove the military, seen in Turkey as secularism's guardian, from civilian posts such as the national educational council. Such a change would until recently have been considered taboo.

Remarkably, even among supporters of the sole opposition party in Parliament, the left-leaning Republican People's Party, 85 percent want Turkey to join the EU, according to Kemal Dervis, the deputy head of the party.

The momentum is leading up to the climactic day of Turkey's aspirations: a December summit meeting in Brussels where European leaders will decide whether to allow the country to begin formal negotiations for entry.

A "yes" decision will require unanimous approval by the EU's 25 countries and would be followed by about a decade of detailed negotiations.

EU leaders must contemplate a future where its second-biggest member is a predominantly Muslim nation of 70 million people - and growing fast.

If Europe dashes Turkey's hopes, then the reform process here and the relative harmony between a governing Muslim party and the traditionally secular and powerful military establishment could end.

When asked about the prospect of failure, Turkey's leaders say there will be great disappointment and a belief that Europe treats Turkey differently because of its Muslim nature.

"All the Muslim world will once more think that, yes, there is a double standard, that there will always be a clash of civilizations," Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul said in an interview.

Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the prime minister, said in an interview with Europe-based journalists that Turks "would really have a heartache" if given a negative response.

Turkish politicians believe that the current political constellation in Europe favors a "yes" decision.

But they are not leaving it to chance. The government recently convened its ambassadors posted in EU countries to discuss lobbying efforts. Turkey may also call on the United States, a longtime and overt supporter of membership, to trumpet the cause.

EU leaders have been making positive noises recently. "Turkey is on the right path," Chancellor Gerhard Schröder said during a visit in February. "Turkey can always count on Germany for support."

Visiting Ankara on Wednesday, Jack Straw, the British foreign secretary, praised Turkey for its "positive approach" on the reunification of Cyprus. "We look forward to a positive decision," he said, referring to the EU summit talks in December.

In the past, Turks and others suspected that what European leaders said publicly to encourage Turkey was different what they actually felt.

Today, the enthusiasm seems more anchored in actual support, EU politicians say.

Turkey's longstanding enemy, Greece, has become a cheerleader for Turkish membership.

Ties started to thaw between the two through a pair of remarkable and cooperative foreign ministers and the "seismic diplomacy" behind each country's assistance to the other after deadly earthquakes in 1999.

The reasons for Greece's support are complex. Yannos Papantoniou, the Greek defense minister, says it is better to have Turkey in the club than outside. Still, he notes that Greece still has concerns about human rights and the depth of democratic reform in Turkey.

"We simply believe that if and when it joins the European Union it will be obliged to observe these rules and values," he said. "This will by itself resolve most of our problems."

Still, Papantoniou said he believed the recent expressions of support around Europe for Turkish membership were genuine.

"I'm not quite sure about the end of this game, whether the Europeans really believe that at some point Turkey will in fact become a member," Papantoniou said in an interview. "But I think they are sincere that they want to help Turkey enter into the road leading up to eventual membership." Greece is using the prospect of membership as a lever to solve a territorial dispute with Turkey in the Aegean Sea and as a way to bring about the reunification of Cyprus.

Both those issues are prerequisites to Greek support in December, Papantoniou said.

Ultimately the decision on Turkish admittance would be taken by a future generation of politicians, he added.

The negotiation process involves absorption by Turkey of the EU's 80,000 pages of laws.

Commentators who oppose Turkey's admission have argued that it would draw massive subsidies from the EU, that it is simply too big to swallow and that as an Asian country it has no place in a European Union. But Halefoglu is confident: "If we get the big fish the others will follow." There is an emerging consensus, here and in Brussels, among diplomats and politicians, that Germany, Britain, Italy and Spain are among the EU heavyweights likely to favor offering negotiations. The position of France, where support for EU enlargement has been cooler, is less certain.

With a need for unanimity, a "yes" is far from certain. The collapse of the EU's constitutional talks in December was mainly caused by the steadfast opposition of Poland and Spain to the draft document, a demonstration of how a small minority can block a big decision.

The admission of Turkey - a huge, existential question for the EU - is also likely to be more widely debated in public as December approaches.

Ultimately Turkey will be judged by what is known in EU jargon as the Copenhagen criteria, a short and relatively basic set of principles established by the EU in 1993.

There are political criteria: "stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities." And economic criteria: "the existence of a functioning market economy as well as the capacity to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the Union." A country must also be able to "take on the obligations of membership including adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union." Sungar, the secretary general of Turkey's EU coordination office, says one problem for the government is that the political criteria "cannot be calculated" and are therefore open to interpretation.

The European Commission, the EU's executive, is responsible for judging whether the criteria have been fulfilled. The commission will issue a report in October that will form the basis for talks at the December summit meeting. International Herald Tribune

Copyright © 2002 The International Herald Tribune

“A republic which is not social cannot be secular”

This article written by a German and published in OpenDemocracy, an "online global magazine of politics and culture" based in the UK offers a critical view of the French ban on hijab, but succeeds in giving a balanced, and helpful account of how it was passed, what it means in the history of France and why there is something wrong about it. Very helpful.

openDemocracy - The French republic: making Muslims into citizens?

The French republic: making Muslims into citizens?
Johannes Willms
26 - 2 - 2004

France’s education system has long worked to transform peasants, migrants and believers into national, secular citizens. Will the process fail with the headscarves worn by the country’s young Muslim women?

Since the 1789 revolution the French state has used its school system to make French citizens out of people from the country’s many different regions: Corsica, the Basque areas, Provence, Brittany, Gascony, Savoie (Italian), Alsace-Lorraine. In the late 19th century, the process intensified under the influence of a centralist state. The memorable title of Eugen Weber’s fascinating book evokes its profoundly transformative impact: Peasants into Frenchmen (1976).

The wars, colonial struggles and economic cycles of the 20th century brought new generations of children into French schools: east European Jews, Poles, Spaniards, Portuguese, Vietnamese, Senegalese, Algerians. All, whatever their origin and first language, rote-learned the stories of nos ancêtres, les gallois (“our ancestors, the French”).

There are successful examples of “assimilation by education” in many fields of French national life – from soccer to cinema, literature to politics. The most prominent current example is the minister of the interior, Nicolas Sarkozy – the son of an aristocratic Hungarian refugee who fled his homeland in 1944.

So it is both ironic and appropriate that the ambitious, charismatic Sarkozy – “the government’s Zinedine Zidane”, according to an ally – has been in the frontline of the latest stage in this long national project: the French parliament’s controversial new law enforcing a ban on the display of explicit religious symbols in educational institutions.

The law decrees that “in schools, junior high schools and high schools, signs and dress that conspicuously show the religious affiliation of students are forbidden.” It is neutrally phrased and in principle applies equally to Catholic crucifixes or Jewish kippah; moreover, it is intended to confirm and consistently apply existing practice, rather than to establish a new legal order. In this sense it is a continuation of a historical project rather than a fresh departure.

For all that, the controversy that the measure has provoked in France reflects the sense among both proponents and opponents that it had a tangible, specific target: the Islamic headscarves of young women, members of the 3.26 million-strong Muslim population of France.

Realms of history

The law confirming a prohibition on the wearing of religious apparel in state schools was passed by the French parliament on 10 February 2004 with an overwhelming, cross-partisan majority – 494-36, with 31 abstentions. The senate, the upper house of parliament, is now considering the law for final approval.

It must be stressed that the law applies only to state-run schools, not to private schools run by religious institutions which are obliged only to teach elements of the national curriculum. Thus, French Muslim people who want their daughters to wear the headscarf still have a choice. In the northern city of Lille, for example, a Muslim private school has operated since September 2003, and like similar Catholic, Protestant or Jewish schools is entitled to state subsidies.

Yet despite the political majority in support of the law, and the continuing space for religious education in France, the law provoked an eruption of intense protest among Muslims and sections of the French left – accompanied by a mixture of bafflement and outrage outside the country.

If these reactions had no effect, the explanation lies in a mixture of history and political opportunism. The continuing desire of the French centre-right not to lose voters to the radical, emphatically xenophobic right – mainly organised in Jean-Marie Le Pen’s Front National – is one calculation behind the timing of the law. But the deeper current the law reflects is the preservation of the uncompromising secularism of the Fifth Republic (1958 onwards) in the face of the visible diversification of the “global nation” on French soil.

In essence, the French political establishment is resisting a multicultural solution – one that would accept this form of society as a fact (even if its utility as the best way to integrate minorities is as yet unproven) and base public policy on tolerance of diversity.

The French elite insists rather in the principle that national identity is exclusively shaped by culture and can therefore be acquired in a learning and assimilation process. This universalistic – and, in an older reading, liberal – approach can be understood as the dominant trend in a historical development rich in political convulsions.

In this perspective, modern France is the inheritor of a state, a nation and a secular understanding forged in centuries of painful argument, and present across the many available “realms of memory” (in Pierre Nora’s famous concept). This argument began with the succession of Charlemagne as ruler of a unified Frankish kingdom in 771 and found its climax, but by no means its finale, in the revolution of 1789. It continues today. The “headscarf law” is French history.

A project unfulfilled

But if the processes of state-isation, nation-isation, and secular-isation have been underway for centuries, why are they still incomplete? Three immediate possible explanations suggest themselves.

First, alongside the secular, republican ethos central to France’s official self-perception is a country shaped by deeply conservative, Catholic values. It is true that Napoleon’s Concordat with Pope Pius VII (1801) effectively suborned the Catholic Church and obliged it to exert political control over its flock; and that a century later, the Third Republic (1871-1941) concluded two decades of intense social argument by decreeing the unconditional separation of church and state in 1905.

Even this rigorous laicité, however, did not eradicate other mentalities with a significant presence in French society; a fact illustrated by the huge, and successful, demonstrations in the early 1980s against government plans to abolish subsidies for the country’s – and mostly Catholic – private schools. This social current views widespread and often militant displays of Islamic allegiance as a hostile challenge.

A second explanation is that immigrants to France from the majority Muslim societies of the southern rim of the Mediterranean are particularly resistant to cultural assimilation by “Frenchness”. Their insistence on maintaining a series of religiously-motivated social practices and prohibitions – regarding pork meat in school canteens, gender-specific use of swimming pools – impacts on the majority population as dogmatic and exclusivist. It is answered by the latter’s exclusion, tinged often with racism and leading to the marginalisation of these immigrants and their descendants in alienated urban or suburban ghettos.

A third element in the incompleteness of the secularist project may be that the sheer number of Muslims in France has grown so rapidly in a relatively short period of time; inevitably, the cultural assimilation process had to fail because it had not been devised for such profusion. In particular, the family reunions permitted during Giscard d’Estaing’s presidency (1974-81) enabled many thousands of male immigrant workers from the Maghreb (Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia), whom France needed for its then booming economy, to bring their next of kin to France.

This trend, and the higher birthrate of Muslim immigrants, has made the Muslim minority in France the highest in the European Union at 3.26 million (5.5% of the population of mainland France), against 4.3% in the Netherlands, 3% in Germany, and 2.6% in Britain.

The social cost of secularism

In the face of these challenges, official France adamantly insists on the principle of equality between citizens, underpinned by a policy of cultural assimilation. By the same token, it rejects “affirmative action” – significantly labelled discrimination positive in France – as a means to accelerate the integration of minorities. Members of ethnic or religious minorities living in the country are not even registered in official statistics as long as they are French citizens.

The insistence on a secularist state policy can be interpreted partly as a cost-neutral exercise. Its proponents can also invoke the argument that if the slightest concession to Muslim demands would immediately risk arousing the desires of other religious groups, thus compromising both the secular principle and France’s cultural identity.

Many Muslims also see this as a danger; as many as 40% of French Muslims, and even larger numbers of women and younger people among them, may support the ban. Dalil Boubakeur, president of the French Council of the Muslim Faith (CFCM), welcomed the law, arguing that it would successfully defend France’s secular institutions from the intrusion of Muslim fundamentalism.

But can these institutions, and the principles that underlie them, endure if the state refuses to acknowledge significant dimensions of its social landscape – unemployment and crime statistics that would be even more frightening if measured according to religious denomination? A pregnant remark of the architect of French socialism, Jean Jaurès, echoes across the decades: “A republic which is not social cannot be secular”.

This article was translated from German by Julian Kramer

More in openDemocracy’s Europe & Islam debate:

Navid Kermani, “Roots of terror” (February 2002)

Gilles Kepel, “The trail of political Islam” (July 2002)

Usman Sheikh, “Lessons from Bosnia” (November 2002)

Tariq Modood, “Muslims and European multiculturalism” (May 2003)

Abdal-Hakim Murad, “European Islam: the return of Hagar”, (July 2003)

A dialogue between "Europe" and "Islam"

This article from the Daily Star newspaper highlights a two-day conference taking place in Lebanon between Europeans and Muslims from across the Arab countries to Indonesia. It's not clear from the article what's on the conference agenda, but organizers are emphasizing that the point is to create a dialogue between "Islam" and "Europe."

Interestingly, a main sponsor is a think tank associated with Hizbullah, a Shia group that challenged the Israeli occupation of south Lebanon. Hizbullah, incidentally, is on Washington's list of terrorist organizations. No dialogue there.

It's surprising that such a conference is taking place. I will look further into it to make an analysis of the potential impacts such "dialogue" could have on European policies with respect to the Middle East and indigenous Muslim communities in EU nations.

I wasn't able to find European stories on this (at least in the British press).

Daily Star, Lebanon "Conference aims to take heads out of the sand"

Conference aims take heads out of the sand
Organizers hope to promote dialogue between Islamic world and Europe

‘The idea came from the think tank of Hizbullah in 2002, and they proposed this idea and we welcomed it’

Christian Henderson
Daily Star staff

A conference aimed at promoting dialogue between the Islamic world and Europe held its opening session Tuesday in which the speakers called for

Manfred Kropp of the Orient Institute in Beirut set the tone when he called on the large crowd of religious figures and academics from all sects and nationalities to remain open to what others had to say.

“Dialogue entails a method ­ to listen to the words of others, and to expect in return to be listened to by the other, and it implies that certain rules are strictly followed: from the renunciation of any kind of violence down to the rules of respect and politeness,” Kropp said.

The Islamic World and Europe: From Dialogue Toward Understanding was organized by four different groups, a fact that is evident in the wide variety of speakers who include MPs from Lebanon and Indonesia as well as academics whose expertise cover a wide range of disciplines and schools of thought. The conference is being held at the Crowne Plaza Hotel.

Leslie Tramontini a research fellow at the Orient Institute, and one of the organizers of the event said that combining the efforts of four organizations had not been easy.

“Organizing the event was more difficult with four groups than it was with one.”

Tramontini said that the Orient Institute was first approached by Hizbullah with a proposal to set such a conference up.

“The idea came from the think tank of Hizbullah in 2002 and they proposed this idea and we welcomed it. How could we not welcome such a thing?”

The event has been the result of some controversy in Germany after a commentator in a newspaper accused the conference of being anti-Semitic and questioned why German government funds should be used to help fund such a conference.

Tramontini dismissed the criticism. “We have had so much positive response in Germany,” she said. “I think this is a polemic,” she said in reference to the criticisms.

“We are of the point of view that putting your head in the sand is of no use. You have to do dialogue.”

The conference covers subjects ranging from democracy, resistance against occupation, political Islam and US foreign policy ­ although the absence of any US officials or academics is conspicuous.

Tramontini said that the magnitude of the subject made it difficult to include everything.

“The Islamic world is a big world and Europe is a big world. There is no way we could include everything,” she said, pointing to the size of the two-day agenda.

“Look at the program, you would be destroyed by those two days, it’s 10 hours,” she said.

Samir Farah, the representative of Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, an NGO that promotes democracy and one of the organizers of the event, said that he hoped a permanent working group could be established as a result of the conference.

“We are hoping that they will come to a certain understanding, and that they will form a sort of permanent committee to sustain such dialogue among the Islamists and Europeans.”

Mohsen Salah, a member of The Consultative Center for Studies and Documentation think tank, which is directed by Hizbullah, and is the only Lebanese group to play a role in the event, said that he hoped a new attitude could be found on behalf of both sides.

“We try to have a new approach. We try to shed light on some issues," said
Jamal al-Banna, a writer and younger brother of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Sheikh Hassan al-Banna, lauded the spirit behind the event.

“I think that this conference is very important, and it must be a continuous movement, and it is very important to take a bridge between Islam and Christianity and the East and the West,” said Banna, who is presenting a paper on democracy. “Confrontation (between East and West) didn’t get anyone anywhere. It’s a harmful phenomena.”

Turkey’s EU candidacy becoming a political issue in Germany

This article in the Frankfurter Allgemeine (a German daily roughly similar to the Wall St. Journal, also known as the FAZ) reports on a visit by Angela Merkel, the head of the CDU, Germany’s leading conservative opposition party (the party of Helmut Kohl), to Ankara for meetings concerning Turkey’s candidacy for the EU. The meetings precede a visit to Ankara by German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder SPD party next week.

The CDU’s position is that Turkey should not be considered for EU membership at this time because of “excessive demands” placed on the union at this time because of the ten countries ready for entry. Merkel, however, suggested a “special partnership” between the EU and Turkey as a “third way” between full membership and no membership.

Turkish prime minister Recep Erdogan strongly rejected this suggestion, saying that politically and economically, Turkey has fulfilled the Copenhagen criteria of 1993 more than ten of the countries being considered for membership, and a special partnership was never part of the discussion and we’re not going to bring it into the discussion. He added further that EU is not a Christian club, but a society with the same political values. Merkel made sure to clarify that her party’s position has nothing to do with religion.

German Human Rights Commissioner Claudia Roth accused Merkel of classifying Turkey as a second-class state and warned the party not to misuse the issue of Turkey’s candidacy in the European election. The Turkish ambassador to Germany also cautioned against using the Turks and Turkey as propaganda for EU elections and stressed the importance of valuing the 40-year relationship between Turkey and the EU.

It seems to me that she is suggesting a NAFTA type agreement between the EU and Turkey, which wouldn’t be very positive for Turkey. I understand this to be a political decision to try to capitalize on negative feelings by Germans towards the large Turkish community in Germany, and that by suggesting a “special partnership”, she can sidestep the issue of German citizenships for Turks, already a hot-button issue in Germany.

In another article by the German paper Die Welt, they included a quote by Merkel in the headline saying that she doesn’t’ want 25 million more Turkish farmers in the EU. This article goes on to say that this number is vastly exaggerated and that figure is actually around 8 million. Interesting that the FAZ doesn’t include this quote and a quote by the leader of the CSU, the other conservative party, that Turkey has never been a part of Europe.

It’s important to understand that this position only comes from the conservative opposition in Germany (both the CDU and the CSU), but it would also be a mistake to underestimate their influence and strategy. I included the EU and Islam as a category, because I think Turkey's candidacy has become inextricably tied to his question that extends to things like the veil in France. I will try to find some examples from the Turkish-German press that address this theme and the what it means for Turks living in Germany.

Die Frankfurter Allgemeine - Freundlich entschieden: Merkel stößt auf Ablehnung

Die Welt - Merkel will nicht „noch 25 Millionen türkische Bauern“

Die Frankfurter Allgemeine
Freundlich entschieden: Merkel stößt auf Ablehnung

16. Februar 2004 Die Vorschläge der CDU-Vorsitzenden Merkel über das künftige Verhältnis zwischen der Türkei und der Europäischen Union sind in der Türkei auf freundliche, aber entschiedene Ablehnung gestoßen. Der türkische Ministerpräsident Erdogan widersprach Frau Merkel "in aller Offenheit": Er sagte im Anschluß an ein anderthalbstündiges Gespräch mit Merkel in Ankara, daß er eine "privilegierte Partnerschaft" strikt ablehne, wie sie die CDU der Türkei als Alternative zur vollen EU-Mitgliedschfat vorschlägt.

Merkel begann am Montag in Ankara eine zweitägige Türkei-Reise, um der dortigen islamisch-konservativen Regierung die ablehnende Haltung der Union zum EU-Beitritt der Türkei zu erklären. Begleitet wurde sie vom stellvertretenden Vorsitzenden der Unionsfraktion im Bundestag Schäuble sowie einem Vertreter der türkischstämmigen CDU-Mitglieder, Bülent Arslan, der dem Deutsch-Türkischen Forum (DTF) vorsitzt.

„Privilegierte Partnerschaft"

Die Bundesregierung bekräftigte hingegen eine Woche vor der Türkei-Reise Bundeskanzler Schröders (SPD) ihre Haltung, daß über die Aufnahme von Beitrittsverhandlungen auf der Grundlage eines Berichts der EU-Kommission Ende des Jahres entschieden werde. Berlin unterstütze die Reformen in der Türkei, die zur Erfüllung der Kopenhagener EU-Kriterien von 1993 führen sollen, sagte Regierungssprecher Anda. Die Erfüllung sei die Voraussetzung für die Vollmitgliedschaft in der EU. Der FDP-Vorsitzende Westerwelle sagte hingegen nach einer Sitzung des Parteipräsidiums in Hamburg: "Die Türkei ist derzeitig, und das meinen wir ökonomisch wie rechtsstaatlich, nicht in einer Lage, daß ihr eine Mitgliedschaft in der EU versprochen oder angekündigt werden könnte." Das habe aber nichts mit der Religion zu tun, "wie es von Konservativen erklärt wird".

Merkel und Schäuble stellten gegenüber allen wesentlichen Führungsmitgliedern der türkischen Regierung wie auch der Regierungspartei AKP - vom Innenminister über den Parlamentspräsidenten bis hin zum Ministerpräsidenten und Außenminister - die Position der Unionsparteien dar. Danach soll mit der Türkei nicht über einen Beitritt zur EU verhandelt werden, eine engere Kooperation aber auch nicht ausgeschlossen sein. CDU und CSU sehen als "dritten Weg" zwischen Voll- und Nichtmitgliedschaft eine "privilegierte Partnerschaft" zwischen EU und Türkei.

„Weder eine Montanunion noch ein Christenklub“

Erdogan widersprach entschieden. Die Türkei habe die Kopenhagener Kritrien politisch wie wirtschaftlich mehr erfüllt, als einige der zehn aktuellen Beitrittsländer. Von einer "priveligierten Partnerschaft" sei nie die Rede gewesen. "Es war nicht in der Diskussion und wir werden es auch nicht in die Diskusion bringen." Die EU sei, soweit er wisse, "weder eine Montanunion noch ein Christenklub, sondern ein Verein mit gemeinsamen politischen Werten."

Erdogan sagte, das könne die EU beweisen, indem sie die nun die Türkei "hereinnimmt". Er bitte Frau Merkel, "uns dabei zu helfen". Merkel stellte klar, daß die CDU die EU jemals als "Christenklub" gesehen habe. Sie stelle auch nicht Frage, daß die Türkei die Kopenhagener Kriterien erfülle. "Ich sehe die Probleme vielmehr bei uns in der bestehenden EU." Die Gemeinschaft sei derzeit schlicht überfordert.

Mit einer "privilegierten Partnerschaft", so argumentierten die CDU-Politiker, könnten alle Erwartungen erfüllt werden, die seit 1963 geweckt und immer wieder genährt wurden. Damals stellte ein Assoziations-Abkommen die Mitgliedschaft der Türkei in der damaligen Europäischen Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft (EWG) in Aussicht. Zwar dürfe dieses einst gegebene Wort heute nicht von der EU gebrochen werden. Aber es sei auch nicht einfach auf die aktuellen Rahmenbedingungen zu übertragen. Das Hauptargument Merkels und Schäubles ist eine drohende Überforderung der EU, die bereits in diesem Jahr zehn neue Mitglieder aufnehme und mit weiteren in Verhandlungen stehe. Es müsse gesehen werden, daß die Aufnahmefähigkeit der EU auch zu den Kopenhagener Kriterien zähle. Insofern sei die Türkei-Politik der vergangenen 40 Jahre "unehrlich" gewesen, weil falsche Hoffnungen auf türkischer Seite geschürt worden seien.

„Vorurteilsfrei und ohne unfreundliche Absichten"

Alle ihre Gastgeber reagierten verhalten auf die Vorschläge Merkels. Der Vorschlag eines "dritten Weges" sei "ziemlich neu" und nur die Meinung von Politikern der CDU und CSU, sagte Cuneyd Zapsu, Vorstandsmitglied der Regierungspartei AKP und einflußreichster außenpolitischer Berater Ministerpräsident Erdogans. Verhandlungen über eine "privilegierte Partnerschaft" seien jedoch keine offizielle Position der EU, auf die sich die Türkei einzustellen habe. Entweder gebe es Verhandlungen um eine Vollmitgliedschaft oder nicht, sagte Zapsu, aber "auf keinen Fall" um einen dritten Weg, welcher auch "von den Häuptern der Europäischen Union nicht gebilligt" werde.

Nach dem Gespräch mit den stellvertretenden Vorsitzenden der AKP sagte die CDU-Vorsitzende Merkel, sie glaube, daß es in den nächsten Jahren eine sehr gute Kooperation zwischen den beiden Parteien geben werde. Das Gespräch in der Parteizentrale der AKP sei ein "sehr guter Start für eine intensivere Kooperation" gewesen. Der programmatische Dialog werde intensiviert und auf der Ebene der beiden Generalsekretäre fortgesetzt, versprach sie. In dem Gespräch sei über die Ziele und das Programm der AKP gesprochen worden. Dabei sei für sie interessant gewesen, daß die AKP ebenfalls die Werte der Religion kenne, Religion und Politik aber als zwei sehr verschiedene Dinge betrachte, sagte Merkel. Merkel lobte auch die Reformfortschritte in der Türkei. "Wir haben festgestellt, daß es in der Türkei unglaubliche Veränderungen gegeben hat und daß diese unter Mitwirkung der AKP geschehen sind", sagte Merkel weiter.

Die Menschenrechtsbeauftragte der Bundesregierung, Claudia Roth, warf Merkel vor, die Türkei mit ihrer Haltung "in die Zweitklassigkeit zu deklassieren". Roth befand, Merkel trage eine Verantwortung dafür, daß "politische Brandstifter wie der CSU-Landesgruppenvorsitzende Michael Glos, das Thema Türkei nicht im Europawahlkampf mißbrauchen". Die Grünen-Politikerin wies darauf hin, daß Verhandlungen beginnen müßten, sobald die Türkei die Beitrittsbedingungen erfülle. Der türkische Botschafter in Deutschland rief Politiker und Medien dazu auf, "vorurteilsfrei und ohne unfreundliche Absichten" die vierzigjährigen Beziehungen zwischen der Türkei und der EU zu würdigen. Er warnte vor allem davor, im Europawahlkampf "die Türkei und die Türken als Thema für Polemik und Propaganda" zu benutzen.

Text: Her./ wus., Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 17. Februar 2004, Seite 1
Bildmaterial: REUTERS

Die Welt

Merkel will nicht „noch 25 Millionen türkische Bauern“
Die Differenzen zwischen der CDU-Chefin und dem türkischen Ministerpräsidenten Erdogan bezüglich eines EU-Beitritts der Türkei bleiben

Angela Merkel
Foto: AP
Ankara - Doch angesichts des Zustandes der Europäischen Union sehe sie die Perspektive einer Vollmitgliedschaft „kritisch“. Gerade um der Türkei nicht die Tür nach Europa zu verschließen, habe sie Verhandlungen über eine besondere Partnerschaft vorgeschlagen. Die Türkei solle dadurch nicht zu einem „Mitglied zweiter Klasse“ werden.

Ihr Vorschlag für eine privilegierte Partnerschaft blieb in Ankara indes ohne Gegenliebe. Die stand auch gar nicht zu erwarten. Neben dem Regierungschef trafen Angela Merkel und Fraktionsvize Wolfgang Schäuble auch Innenminister Abdülkadir Aksu, Außenminister Abdullah Gül, Parlamentspräsident Bülent Arinc und die gesamte Führungsspitze der AKP.

Erdogans persönlicher Berater Cüneyt Zapsu sagte zu deutschen Journalisten: „Jeder Mensch braucht ein Ziel. Im Moment wollen 75 Prozent der Türken Mitglied der EU sein. Wenn wider Erwarten im Dezember nicht der Beginn der Beitrittsverhandlungen oder nur ein 'Jein' beschlossen wird, müssen wir uns ein anderes Ziel suchen.“

Die Verhandlungen würden ergebnisoffen geführt, und wenn sich nach fünf bis zehn Jahren herausstelle, dass die Türkei die Bedingungen für eine Vollmitgliedschaft nicht erfüllen könne, müsse man neu nachdenken, dann vielleicht auch über den von Merkel vorgeschlagenen dritten Weg - aber erst dann.

Zusätzlich zu der bevorstehenden Erweiterung auf 25 EU-Staaten noch ein Volk von 70 Millionen Menschen aufzunehmen, übersteige die Integrationskraft der EU, betonte Merkel. Angesichts der Haushaltsprobleme der EU und der hartleibigen deutschen Position „weiß man doch, was es bedeutet, wenn noch 25 Millionen türkische Bauern dazukommen sollen“, argumentierte sie zudem im ZDF. Die 25 Millionen Bauern wurden im übrigen in Ankara heftig dementiert - 2,3 Millionen landwirtschaftliche Betriebe und rund sechs Millionen Bauern sind die offiziellen Zahlen.

Erdogan: EU-Beitritt ist kein Wahlkampfthema

Mit Blick auf die Europawahl betonte Erdogan: „Die Türkei sollte nicht in einen politischen Machtkampf hineingezogen werden.“ Auch der Botschafter der Türkei in Deutschland, Mehmet Ali Irtemcelik, warnte davor, im Wahlkampf das Thema EU-Beitritt der Türkei in den Vordergrund zu stellen. Die Mitgliedschaft stehe derzeit nicht auf der Tagesordnung, sagte er. Daher sei es unangebracht, „die Gemüter zu verwirren“ und Polemik und Propaganda mit dem Türkei-Thema zu betreiben.

Zuvor hatte CSU-Chef Edmund Stoiber erneut deutlich gemacht, seine Partei werde das Thema EU-Beitritt der Türkei im Wahlkampf verwenden. CSU-Landesgruppenchef Michael Glos schloss einen EU-Beitritt der Türkei kategorisch aus. „Die Türkei war nie Teil Europas“, sagte er der „Schwäbischen Zeitung“. Merkel gab am Rande des Besuchs zu erkennen, dass die Union das Thema aufgreifen werde - aber „ohne Schaum vorm Mund“.

Erdogan vertrat die Auffassung, dass ein Beitritt seines Landes keine neuen Lasten für die EU bringen werde, sondern die Türkei diese mittragen wolle. Die Türkei würde die EU stärken. Hintergrund der Diskussion ist, dass Ende des Jahres die Staats- und Regierungschefs der EU über die Aufnahme formeller Beitrittsverhandlungen mit der Türkei entscheiden müssen. Zuvor muss allerdings die EU-Kommission einen Bericht über die Fortschritte des Landes bei der Übernahme der europäischen Rechtsordnung und in Hinblick auf die wirtschaftliche Entwicklung vorlegen. CDU und CSU sind derzeit nach eigener Einschätzung die einzigen Parteien in Deutschland, die einem türkischen EU-Beitritt generell ablehnend gegenüberstehen.

Der Besucherstrom in Ankara wird nicht abreißen: Für die kommende Woche hat sich Bundeskanzler Gerhard Schröder angesagt. Dieser gehört zu den Befürwortern eines Beitritts. WELT.de/dpa/AP

Artikel erschienen am 16. Feb 2004

Pope speaks in defense of the Islamic veil

The proposition about the veil is raising a very controversial and complex debate that goes beyond the typical black and white devide.
Surprisingly enough, even the Catholic environment is split into different positions.
According to his recent speech in Rome (January 12, 2004,) The Pope himself criticized Jacques Chirac’s government initiative.
The following article says that Pope John Paul II condemned “the secularity that becomes laicism.” In other words, the French new rule is interpreted by the Church as a deviating form of laicism: “a principle of liberty that becomes a refusal of the freedom of every single individual.”
On the other hand, the Italian newspaper “L’Avvenire” published an interview to the authoritative Islamist Samir Khalil Samir, a Jesuit, who said that the veil is part of a phenomenon of “non-integration,” that has its roots in the current European crisis.”

www.chiesa, L'Espresso, "Il velo proibito. La Francia tra laicita' e islamismo"

Friction among friends

According to this piece, it looks like even with the cooling of hostility over the war in Iraq, solidarity doesn't have a sunny forecast in 2004 for trans-Atlantic relations.

It is interesting to see the incipient divide between Germany and France regarding NATO involvement in Europe's defense. Of course the US would like to see expansion of NATO and NATO forces in Europe and Iraq, including Turkey. It still maintains US military power in the region while diffusing the interests of the EU (not to mention US military costs) and affords the US more leverage in Europe, particularly if the US endorses "fringe" candidates, like Turkey.

The German defense minister, Peter Struck, supports Brent Scowcroft's (who was actually the adviser to GHWB, not GWB himself as stated), assertion that, "unless NATO was Europe's explicit court of first resort in a crisis, 'we're on the road to destruction.'"

I find it curious that the article doesn't peek into this aspect and what may precipitate it.

In response to Roya's earlier posting about Germany and France's seemingly unavoidable involvement in Iraq, this piece speaks to that, with Germany's foreign minister, Joschka Fischer, offering the idea of a European-American plan for the Middle East. It sounds like he wants the European brain to kill Islamic fundamentalist terrorism with kindness while American brawn can strangle them with war.

But the U.S. still doesn't want its troops to die alone.

International Herald Tribune - News Analysis: For allies, well-tempered sparring

News Analysis: For allies, well-tempered sparring

John Vinocur/IHT
Monday, February 9, 2004

MUNICH A master of excess, Donald Rumsfeld sought this time to be resoundingly lukewarm. Asked just before the opening of the Munich Conference on Security Policy to describe the current state of trans-Atlantic relations, he said, smiley-faced, "fairly normal."

It was the moderate/cautious/mildly consensual public approach to Europe of the U.S. secretary of defense over the weekend. In an election year, a new round of insults and shrillness with old allies like France and Germany over Iraq and how to deal with the dangers of the world would not do the Bush administration much good with American voters, however little they may really care.

Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer of Germany, who emotionally battled Rumsfeld in the same hotel conference room a year ago, reciprocated with non-hysterics, saying, "We have to look forward."

Finished was the environmentalist peace-guardian binding himself to a tree of virtue. Twelve months later, for Fischer, the apparent futility of the French and German effort to turn Europe against the Americans on the Iraq war seemed to be a lesson well taken on board, if never to be acknowledged in confessional terms.

But all the willful moderation at the conference Saturday could not hide the mutual skepticism, or the degrees of mistrust and contempt, and plain disagreement running inches below the surface.

The doggedly civil exchange between security officials and experts about how the allies and NATO could combat Islamic fundamentalist terrorism and help install security and modernity in the Middle East came down to a tacit reconsecration of the Alliance's split between those who want to do and those who want to talk.

On the German side, there was an unusually open acknowledgment about "destructive jihadist terrorism with its totalitarian ideology" as the greatest global threat - but by American definition at least, no "do" on Iraq. Zero troops from us, said Fischer. After all, Germany's antiwar position, he insisted three paragraphs into a keynote speech, had been proven right by events.

Rather than offering antiterrorist fighters for the front lines, Fischer called for a joint European-American plan for the Middle East. Elevating talk to complete equality with doing, Fischer claimed that alongside security matters it was "of almost even greater importance" that "social and cultural modernization issues, as well as democracy, the rule of law, women's rights and good governance" get full attention.

Applause (moderate, in keeping with the conference tonality) and mumbling in the audience. Ulrich Weisser, a retired German vice admiral, leaned toward a neighbor and said, "That speech was from Venus," reworking the caricature of Robert Kagan's remark comparing American Martians with European Venusians.

Was Fischer prescribing a division of labor among the allies where the Americans went after the killers and the Europeans spread the peace and re-painted schoolrooms?

Former Senator William Cohen of Maine, a secretary of defense in the Clinton administration, formulated this thought more indirectly and elegantly by wondering, in a question asked of Fischer, how come Germany was not furnishing military assistance in Iraq if stabilization there was the obvious prerequisite to modernization, democracy and Mediterranean free trade zones. Another American asked rhetorically how the allies were to install dialogue and détente with a security threat that is clearly not open to them.

But the Germans were intent on appearing active and full of gabby initiative. While Rumsfeld stuck to saying that NATO showed "a good deal of life," promising that a Mediterranean dialogue would find a place high on the NATO summit meeting in Istanbul in June (and with a little more heat, remembering out loud that his audience in Munich last year included people from countries who said they did not care who won in Iraq), Defense Minister Peter Struck proposed that the Alliance commission a statement on its future at Istanbul.

He called it a "new Harmel report," a reference to a 1967 document that the then West Germany considered a legitimization of its policy of détente toward the Soviet Union. In a sense, Struck seemed to be interested in a reworked mission statement that would bring soft diplomacy an official and respectable place alongside search-and-destroy missions as NATO's zone of geographic preoccupation spread into the Middle East.

Without any elaboration, Struck also advocated "sensible complementarity" between NATO and the European Union's projected military units and coordination between the two concerning their "level of ambition."

What? For Brent Scowcroft, the former national security adviser to President George W. Bush, that seemed to sound like very willful ambiguity. He said that it was nice to talk about complementarity and Harmel reports, but that unless NATO was Europe's explicit court of first resort in a crisis, "we're on the road to destruction."

Struck gave Scowcroft one of the clearest responses of the weekend. It rivaled Rumsfeld's remark in response to a Palestinian's question about Israel's atomic weapons: that if the Israelis had them it was because they alone had to deal with forces in the Middle East that sought their country's extinction.

"NATO is first choice for me," Struck said. "There's no doubt that NATO is in the forefront."

But that was the German defense minister. A high NATO official said that nothing of like clarity could be expected from France. Indeed, the French defense minister, Michèle Alliot-Marie, in talking about the EU's defense efforts, succeeded rhetorically and without harshness in placing a larval European notion and NATO on exactly the same plane, mighty coequals in a world known only to the imagineers, in Walt Disney's phrase, of France's security-policy think tanks.

All these exchanges - their moderation and their more jagged subtext - wound up without discussion of at least three potentially raw and critical areas of trans-Atlantic disagreement.

In recent weeks, both Chancellor Gerhard Schröder and President Jacques Chirac have said they would like to consider arms sales to China. The U.S. State Department responded disapprovingly, calling this a very poor idea. The EU will probably be asked to consider lifting a ban on weapons deals soon.

At the same time, many in Europe, including a big segment of the Bush administration's conservative friends, do not like the United States' open pressure on the EU to accept Turkey as a candidate member.

They say American involvement feeds the arguments of those who describe U.S. policy as seeking to foil European integration. And they fear that with American strategic goals in the Middle East being of greater interest than pleasing Europe, the Americans will not find a way to back off from aggressive support of the Turks.

Most important, the willful courtesies of the well-mannered sparring in Munich left out the enormous implications of the administration's $401.7 billion defense budget for next year. Senator John McCain did mention in passing that of more than two million Europeans under arms, some 5 percent of them were deployable on really tough assignments.

But this was a weekend when contentiousness was not the intent. Considering the virtually unbridgeable gap in capabilities, nobody had the heart to smudge the occasion by saying that trans-Atlantic solidarity in 2004, to use the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung's words, is just no longer a given.

International Herald Tribune