Against the backdrop of the tragic events in Europe in recent weeks, French President Emmanuel Macron and Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz (pictured together) have found themselves at the center of political life in the EU, which until now has been preoccupied with solving urgent problems — fighting the second wave of the coronavirus and overcoming the consequences of the economic disaster caused by the shutdown.
Now, instead, Kurz is proposing to discuss joint efforts to combat «political Islam» at the upcoming EU summit, while Macron is reaping the dividends of the «Islamist attack» victim. Like it or not, a classic question arises: Cui prodest (who benefits)? After all, in the detective genre, investigators try to understand the possible motives for a murder, in addition to investigating the circumstances.
Let us note right away that we do not deny the existence of fanatics ready to kill innocent people and the possibility that some of these crimes are committed by them; we condemn them and have always condemned them. However, when big political projects, power and money are at stake, brainless fanatics often become mere pawns in political games, and we wrote about documented examples of this just yesterday (https://golosislama.com/news.php?id=39289).
So who benefited politically from what happened? It is safe to say that it was not the Muslims of Europe, who have only begun to recover in recent years thanks to the disappearance of the «Islamic threat» from the media and public agenda. The «Islamic State», which for several years attracted attention and demonized Muslims, has been defeated, and al-Qaeda has ceased its activities in Europe. The Syrian refugee crisis is over. And the political consequences of all this did not take long to materialize — the parties that exploited the «Islamic threat» immediately declined.
A vivid example of this was the elections in Vienna in mid-October. All three parties that exploited the «Islamic threat» card (Kurz’s ÖVP, his former allies in the FPO and the breakaway STRACHE) suffered a crushing defeat, while the parties that focused on pressing issues for Austrians, such as the cost of living and the environment, won. Worse still, in terms of trust, or rather mistrust, in the existing authorities, in France, according to Le Figaro in October, 80% of French people said they would no longer vote for an establishment candidate, which Macron became in the last presidential election (https://www.lefigaro.fr/politique/presidentielle-2022-tentes-par-la-protestation-les-francais-sont-en-demande-de-protection-20201025).
In terms of politics, both Kurz and Macron were «downed pilots» of European politics at the time of the recent terrorist attacks, which meant that the only thing they could expect was to be ousted in the next national elections — a rehearsal for which took place in Vienna’s local elections last month. So who benefited from boosting their ratings and rescuing them from political oblivion by giving them the laurels and trump cards as the main fighters against the «Islamic threat»? In light of such questions about motives, questions about certain circumstances surrounding the events look different.
Why were repeated reports to the police about threats received by the beheaded teacher and the attacked church in Nice ignored? How is it possible that despite Kurz’s loud declarations about stepping up the fight against terrorism, the perpetrator of the recent Vienna attack, Faisal Kuaitam, was released early a few months after his conviction for attempting to join ISIS in Syria, while in the neighboring Czech Republic such acts are punishable by 15 years in prison? Moreover, other participants in the Vienna attack are linked to «Balkan jihadist networks» with which, as the above article shows, French intelligence has close ties. They also have close links in North Africa, from where the terrorist who attacked Nice arrived two weeks before the attack.
Even if we assume that they did not organize all these attacks, but simply allowed them to happen, it speaks volumes about the failure of the policies of the Kurz and Macron governments, which simultaneously fueled the escalation of violence with their provocative statements. However, in addition to the similarities in their domestic policies, Macron and Kurz are also united by their common foreign policy, specifically their desire to involve the entire EU in a confrontation with Turkey, which is a strategic partner for many EU members.
A few days ago, the Polish ambassador to Turkey, Jakub Kumoch, spoke in an interview about the strategic partnership between the two countries. Turkey’s strategic partner is Hungary, which openly recognizes its special relationship with Turkey and the rest of the Turkic world. Turkey is also an important economic and security partner for Germany, which has played a key role in resolving the refugee crisis. So who benefits from whipping up anti-Turkish and anti-Islamic hysteria, portraying Turkey as the organizer of «Islamic terrorism» and a threat to all of Europe? It is understandable that the propagandists of the terminally ill military and political Armenian nationalism are involved, but they are too insignificant to be taken seriously in world politics; they are mere pawns that not even the Armenians themselves want to recognize.
However, if we take a closer look at the key figures in this anti-Turkish and anti-Islamic crusade, we will see something that unites them all. Sebastian Kurz and his Austrian People’s Party, Emmanuel Macron and his «En Marche!» movement, and Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis and his «New Democracy» party, which has significantly worsened Greek-Turkish relations since coming to power — they are all representatives of the right-wing liberals or the part of the establishment that decided to exploit the right-wing populist sentiment that posed a challenge to them.
Thus, Kurz adopted the right-wing populist rhetoric of the Freedom Party, swallowed it into a coalition, and finally destroyed it with the provocation of leaking a hidden recording against its leader, Heinz-Christian Strache, who played the role of useful idiot twice — the second time when he split from the Freedom Party to create his own Strache Party, which was then drowned in the Vienna elections. Emmanuel Macron also adopted the rhetoric of Marine Le Pen’s National Front (now National Rally) after his victory over her in the presidential election, and made efforts to further marginalize her, while also facing the challenge of the «yellow vest» populist movement. In addition, a criminal case was recently opened against another of his strong opponents, Nicolas Sarkozy. As for Mitsotakis, he has effectively adopted the aggressive anti-Turkish ideas of the far-right Golden Dawn party, which was banned this year — presumably as an unwanted competitor.
All of these parties are attempting to push the old European establishment, which is based on either respectable conservatism or social democracy, sharply to the right, ousting traditional right-wing populists from that niche. They have all chosen Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who actually defends the principles of authentic conservatism and religious nationalism, as their enemy and are playing the card of religious hatred against Islam. So, whose interests do the terrorist attacks, their organizers and perpetrators serve? *- Prohibited in the Russian Federation.