Airstrip One

Not good - 28th November 2002, 22.41

Current developments within the swirls of diplomacy surrounding the European Convention could prove disastrous for the United Kingdom since the renewed Franco-German offensive in EU circles is moving towards a common foreign and security policy. Blair will find himself isolated and facing a United Europe when our historic goal has always been to maintain the balance of power on the Continent between different nations.

France and Germany are going to submit a proposal to the defence working group of the Convention that envisages an integrated leadership capacity, training system and strategic doctrine, external to NATO. This rips apart New Labour's strategy of favouring a limited EU capability complementing US leadership.

The document talked about establishing 'multinational forces with integrated leadership capacities, regardless of their Nato actions'.

Both countries have talked about implementation of this proposal using the process of 'enhanced co-operation' and ushering in the heralded 'two speed Europe'. Of course, this deepened integration does not prevent the basic unification that would be achieved by the Constitution. The Danes are aghast to find that their hard fought opt-outs are so much smoke in the new Europe, especially after they tried so hard to act like good Europeans.

The Axis is a paper tiger and may provide a comfort blanket in times when a realistic assessment of security is required. Although Mr T has his own view here.

Do I look big in this? - 28th November 2002, 22.14

Another contribution from our favourite Italian. It appears that Turkey is European but even the Commission President cannot stomach the loose ends of the Soviet era: Belarus, Russia, the Ukraine and Moldova.

His reasons were very rational.

"We need to talk about our criteria. The fact Ukrainians or Armenians feel European means nothing to me, because New Zealanders feel European too," he said.

Prodi said President Vladimir Putin had asked him about potential Russian membership of the union.

"I told him straight away clearly: 'No, you are too big,'" Prodi said.

I hope any Kiwis out there will feel insulted.

Will London be a target? - 28th November 2002, 22.08

Possibly not.

Alarmist suggestions in the Financial Times earlier this year that Saudi investors have been pulling their money out of the United States was massively overstated. But a lot of Arab money is flooding into the British property market. According to DTZ Research, Middle East investors poured $1.278 million into the European property market last year, with 91 percent of that investment going to the United Kingdom. But Arab investment in British commercial properties over the first 9 months of 2002 soared to $1.353 million, a 20 percent increase. Anecdotal evidence says the money flow has increased over the past six weeks. The recently filed trillion-dollar lawsuit in the United States against Saudi "funders of terrorism" is seen as a factor. The latest fuss over the charitable donations of the wife of Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar is likely to increase the trend.

And what will we do when we get there?

Once again, dear reader, I must point you to my improvement on Antiwar.com, Christopher Montgomery. In this article he, once again, dissects the curiously unconservative musings of all those ex-leftrightwingers keen to invade Mesopotamia. And he asks what in the blazes will we do with the Chaldeans when we get them.

Err, Turkey's not in Europe

Srdja Trifkovic pours scorn on the idea that Turkey is in any way European:

Although Turkey has managed to hold onto a small piece of Europe's southeastern corner in the aftermath of the Balkan wars, it is an Asiatic country not only in the bulk of its land mass, but more importantly in its people's history, culture, outlook, religion, and way of life.

Iain Murray (a naturalising American like Mr Trikovic) would not agree, labelling opposition to inclusion of the Turks within the EU as "disgraceful" and "racist". Well I can see how he can think that.

First, is the wish to deny the Turks access to the EU racist? Most Westerners who lives in or around Turkish people would react with surprise with that assertion. Turks seem to mostly be Mediterranean in appearance and hardly distinguishable from other people from the Eastern Mediterranean. This may be because the vast majority of Turks are either from Western Turkey or Cyprus or they are Rumelian Turks who were descendants of European converts to Islam. Other Turks will be less ethnically European, although they are initially less likely to come over here.

The Turks are probably the most Caucasian of Asian peoples, and there's the rub. It is not race that militates against Turkey but culture.

To quickly take on immigration. At a time of heightened sensitivity within the Muslim world is it really a good time to be opening the door to a tens of millions of Muslims? We must be mad, literally mad. Let other less enlightened souls worry about the racial stock, I just think of all those potential terrorists that we're importing.

Then there's the question of political culture. Now Turkey's got a few of these. Firstly there's the oriental despotism of the Ottomans, the proto-fascism of Ataturk (Father of the Turks, no less) or the now incipient Islamism. What we don't see in Turkish political history is a convincing display of democracy or human rights. Is the Army still in control behind the scenes, is Kurdish still banned? This may suit the Eurocrats, but I don't really want representatives or bureaucrats from this political tradition making decisions regarding British lives. Now many of us Eurosceptics point to the shallow democratic roots of present EU members, but Spain's democratic roots appear deep by comparison to Turkey.

And then there's the strategic imperitives. Now Turkey is part of (a dying) NATO so the damage is partly done. However do we really want closer strategic ties with a country that borders Iran, Iraq, Syria, Armenia and Georgia? I can't see how the British national interest is enhanced by having a presence in this unstable region, but I can see plenty of new risks coming in. More risks and no benefits sounds like a bad deal to me.

There is a seductive argument that has been around since the 1980s, the enlargement falacy. I am not talking about all the e-mails that you get about changing certain aspects of your physique but the idea that by increasing the scope of the European Union one somehow dilutes it making it harder to unite. Since we joined in 1973 the EU has more than doubled it's membership. Has the integration clock been turned back one second in that time?