The new head of the Freedom Party (Haider’s party) admitted that “Haider was the man of my life.”

Heider was Roman Catholic and married with two children. The party fired Stefan Petzner yesterday.

Wow.

The Alliance for Austria’s future is Austria’s loudest anti-immigrant, anti-Turkey voice. Haider once made the puzzling observation that “Turks do not integrate into society.”

Austria is one of the greatest obstacles to Turkey’s EU bid. Will the combination of Haider’s death and the new leader’s surprising revelations derail popular support for the far-right movement in Austria? If so, this weird news could be good news for Turkey.

While the new law does not specifically target Turkey, it does allow the President of France to decide whether or not the “yes or no” vote will be a nationwide referendum or merely a parliamentary matter. Thus, countries such as Croatia may very well be spared the danger of a referendum, while Turkey will likely have to face one. It is inconceivable that a majority of French citizens would vote for Turkey’s accession to the EU.

Thus, Turkey’s hopes of joining the European Union just became dimmer.

To grossly oversimplify the situation: the “secularists” dogmatically follow the ideals of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. They believe that religious symbols should be banned from the public sphere, and they believe that the AK Party of Tayyip Erdogan secretly wants to turn Turkey into an Islamic state. They think the headscarf — known in Turkey as the turban – oppresses women.

The so-called Islamists are led by the Erdogan and the AK Party. In reality, they do not advocate an Islamic state. They do believe that headscarved women should be allowed to attend public universities and enter government buildings. In short, they call for an American-style of secularism.

The Turkish style of secularism, called laiklik, is based on French laicite. Laiklik demands the exclusion of religious symbols from the public sphere. Unfortunately, laiklik has become a means of excluding religious Turks from educational and professional opportunities. It is also a vehicle through which anti-religious feeling is channeled. Ataturkists declare that they are doing society a favor by marginalizing covered women. They say the turban is part of a backward tradition that hurts Turkey’s image as a secular republic. They feel that it is the place of the state to intervene in these women’s fashion choices in order to “free” them.

We are now seeing an amazing parallel between the French headscarf controversy and the Turkish one. The headscarf is banned from public schools in France (although small crosses are allowed). In addition, a French court recently denied citizenship to a Moroccan woman who wears a burqa. The court said she was not “French enough” because the burqa is a marker of inequality between the sexes. A self-described Muslim “feminist” from France, who happens to be a government minister, agreed. She said of the the burqa:

It is not a religious insignia but the insignia of a totalitarian political project that advocates inequality between the sexes and which is totally devoid of democracy.

Of course, it did not occur to this government minister — or to the millions of Turks who rally against the right of women to practice their religion as they wish — that it is undemocratic to impose a secular dress code on a person who chooses of their own free will to dress in a way that corresponds with their religious beliefs (as they see them).

Indeed, no one criticizes Urban Affairs Minister Fadela Amra for her choice of hairstyle and makeup, even though she, as a woman, must spend inordinate amounts of time attending to her appearance. She spends so much time doing her hair and putting on makeup because Western societies expect women to be more visually appealing than men. Any Western feminist will tell you that this is a manifestation of patriarchy and a sure example of gender inequality. Wouldn’t it be fitting for France to revoke the citizenship of Urban Affairs Minister Amra? After all, gender studies literature demonstrates a strong connection between gender inequality and domestic violence and rape.

Why is it that Urban Affairs Minister Amra able to live in a way that reinforces gender inequality, but the Moroccan woman wearing the burqa is not?

In both France and Turkey, large segments of the ruling elite have an aversion to religion in general, and Islam in particular. Furthermore, both France and Turkey have strong statist traditions. In both countries, the state has a habit of dictating to people how they should live their lives. As anti-religious or anti-Muslim elites dominate the state apparatuses of both Turkey and France, the rights of millions of Muslim women are trampled in both countries.

It is impossible to say where Turkey would be today were it not for Ataturk’s rigid imposition of laicite on the Turkish Republic. Maybe Turkey would have turned into an Iran or an Afghanistan. Or maybe it would have developed a healthy accommodation of religion by politics that could serve as a model to the rest of the Muslim world. That’s one for the political scientists to figure out.

Armenians claim that over 1 million Armenians were systemically murdered by the Ottoman military in 1915. They, along with scholars from across many discipline, call these murders genocide.

Turks disagree. Some claim that “people were killed on both sides” and that what the Armenians suffered was not worse than what Turks suffered. Some claim that the Ottomans were justified in brutally ethnically cleansing Anatolia of Armenians because of the likelihood that the group would collude with advancing Russian troops. Most Turkish historians claim that not more than a few hundred thousand Armenians were actually killed in and around 1915. For a Turkish view on the subject read this article in the Turkish daily Hurriyet.

These claims are bunk.

They exist for a number of reasons. First, the Turkish educational system indoctrinates every Turkish citizen with a version of Turkish history based more on nationalism than on fact. Second, those who publicly call what happened to the Armenians a “genocide” will be viewed by many within as traitors and liars. In other words, if a Turk says publicly that the Armenian genocide happened, he will lose friends and gain lots of enemies. Third, overzealous state prosecutors dissuade scholars from accurately analyzing what actually took place. Does anyone remember what happened to Orhan Pamuk?

That said, there are some who maintain that what the Ottomans did should be called ethnic cleansing rather than genocide. This last explanation is the only one that might possibly stand up to historical scrutiny. For this reason, many non-Turkish scholars refer to the massacres and deportations suffered by Ottoman Armenians as a horrific act of ethnic cleansing, but not as genocide.

So how will this debate affect Turkey’s EU bid?

• It is against the law in Europe to condone or trivialize genocide. Turkey must pass such a law before it joins the EU.
• France has a large Armenian population. Armenians in France constitute a powerful voting block, which can only hurt Turkey’s chances of membership — as long as there is no resolution to the Armenian Genocide issue that is satisfactory to the Armenian diaspora.
• There is currently no Armenian Genocide recognition clause in Turkey’s accession plan. It is quite possible that one could come. Such a clause could turn public opinion in Turkey decisively against the EU.
• The Armenian Genocide issue is a powerful weapon of the anti-EU Turks. The ultra-nationalist National Movement Party (MHP) uses the issue to support its ideology. This ideology seems to be based on conspiracy theories rather than facts. MHP supporters, along with other Turks, believe that much of the world is conspiring to divide Turkey. They see Armenian Genocide claims as a means of legitimating the claims of some Armenians on parts of Eastern Turkey.

The new “Mediterranean Union” has been hyped by French President Nicholas Sarkozy since his 2007 election campaign. At the same time, the idea has been derided in Ankara and various other capitals across the EU and Muslim Mediterranean.

The impetus behind this Sarkozy project was to let Turkey think that it was actually joining Europe while denying the very large and very Muslim country membership in the European Union. Perhaps of equal importance was the chance to cast France as a “regional power.” Of course, the first meeting of the Mediterranean Union will be in Paris, with Sarkozy playing host.

Until recently Turkey steadfastly opposed the Union. It has agreed to attend the first meeting of the block in Paris, on the condition that Turkey will be recognized as a country “conducting membership negotiations with the EU.”

Why is Turkey reticent to participate in the MU?

This is not difficult to answer. The so-called Mediterranean Union is clearly not a union. It will, of course, never be comparable to the European Union. There is no Copenhagen Criteria for accession to the body. Thus, the salutary effects of the EU accession process are null and void. In fact, it is quite condescending to offer the MU as an alternative to the EU. By naming Hosni Mubarak — the leader of a police state with a controlled economy — vice-chair of the body, Sarkozy shows that the MU has little interest in democratization or liberalization.

So what is its value?

For one, it may boost the importance of France on the world scene, something which is of perennial interest to the French, but to no one else. It will also allow North African and Eastern Mediterranean dictators to feel important. Another worthy cause.

Aside from the nay-saying, there is one very positive development that may arise from the first MU meeting. During his election campaign, Sarkozy made the bombastically claimed that a Mediterranean Union would “end all hatreds to make way for a great dream of peace and a great dream of civilisation. Silly as this idea is, the first MU summit will bring together Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad for the first time. While the MU will almost surely not bring about large scale breakthroughs, it may not be a total waste if it promotes dialog among people who would normally have nothing to do with one another.

Although it varies in its intensity, such appalling anti-Roma racism can be found in almost anywhere in Europe (Turkey included).

In a move reminiscent of its fascist past, Italy’s interior minister has ordered the fingerprinting of all Roma.

Roma in Slovakia live as second class citizens and face discrimination and violence that calls Jim Crow-era Mississippi to mind. Amazingly, Slovakia undertook municipal ethnic cleansing campaigns while a member of the European Union.

Roma in Turkey, like Roma in the rest of Europe, report discrimination in the areas of employment, justice and housing.
It is well and good that the European Union holds prospective member states to strict human rights standards. However, it might be even better if current EU states lived up to those standards.

Bad news for Turkey? Sort of. Even before the downfall of the Lisbon Treaty, Turkey knew that membership in the EU would not occur for at least 5-10 years. That said, Turkey will have to wait in line for membership behind Croatia. The longer it takes Croatia, the longer it will take Turkey.

For more, check out this article in Zaman.

The Turks are angry over a recent memorandum of understanding between the UK and the Republic of Cyprus. The memorandum purportedly supports the Greek point of view in the conflict.

Furthermore, the Greek Cypriots have decided to conduct military exercises in the Mediterranean, with — you guessed it — France. The Greeks would have been hard pressed to find a military partner more irritating to Ankara.

On the other hand, the Greeks are angry at Turkish Cypriot moves toward establishing relations with foreign countries. TRNC Foreign Minister Turgut Avci recently attended a meeting of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) in Ughanda. Greek Cypriots view Northern Cyprus as illegally occupied territory, and thus view Turkish Cypriot efforts to conduct foreign affairs as a breach of Cypriot sovereignty.

Turkey must confront a number of challenges during its path to accession. The Cyprus problem is one of the most difficult and probably the most critical of these challenges. On the one hand, Turks are extremely reluctant to cede any ground — both literally and figuratively — on the Cyprus issue. Turkish soldiers died during the Cyprus invasion. Giving up Cyprus would be seen as a betrayal of those Şehit‘s (the term used to describe Turkish soldiers killed in battle. Its literal translation is “martyr”). On the other hand, it will be absolutely impossible for Turkey to join Europe if the Cyprus situation is not solved to the satisfaction of all parties.

And what are Europe’s energy woes? Obviously, EU countries must contend with high gasoline prices, just like almost everyone else in the world. Unlike other countries, Europe must also balance its need for natural gas with its fear of one-sided dependence on Russia. Russia has shown that it is willing to use its energy resources for political gain. Leaders in EU capitals are searching for natural gas transit routes that are not controlled by Gazprom, the Russian energy giant.

And that is where Turkey — along with numerous other non-EU countries — come in. Turkey already supplies Azerbaijani gas to Greece via its pipeline network. However, a new, more ambitious pipeline is in the works. The new pipeline, named Nabucco, would transit Caspian natural gas via Turkey to Southern and Eastern Europe. This would lessen Moscow’s grip on the European market. The ensuing competition would reduce prices and limit the spread of Russian influence.

The Nabucco Pipeline is rapidly becoming a reality. The blog World News Journal  claims that an agreement has been reached to transit Arab gas to Nabucco via Turkey. If so, this would be a huge boost to the project. On the Caspian side, Azerbaijani relations with Russia are frosty, and it is in the interest of Baku to join Nabucco. Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan are increasingly expressing interest.

When Nabucco becomes a reality, Europe will face higher costs should it alienate Turkey. A Turkey hostile to Europe could turn of the gas at any moment. It could also simply allocate a larger share of the pipeline’s gas for itself. This is a real possibility, as energy consumption increases as economies grow (and Turkey’s economy is one of the fastest growing in the world).

Thus, while Nabucco isn’t a reason in and of itself to admit Turkey into the European club, it is a very good reason to try to keep Turkey’s hopes of joining Europe alive.