Wednesday, November 1, 2023
We have ended up in the depressing situation that we are now as Europe surrounded by wars and military conflict. It is obvious that the attack by Hamas against Israel was horrific and outright evil and that it is clear that Israel cannot exist if Hamas also exists. This situation is the consequence of the extremism of Hamas that has as stated goal to eradicate Israel. Subsequently there is a war between Israel and Hamas and both Palestinian and Israeli civilians are victims in this war. As more than enough has been said over this conflict, it is more useful to focus on an angle that has wide-ranging implications for the foreign policy of the EU and EU Member States. The question is ‘Who supports Hamas’? The answer to that question is quite clear: Iran, Qatar and Turkey. Erdogan called Hamas ‘liberators’ at 25 October and allows Hamas to keep its offices and all in Turkey. Qatar allows Hamas to have a big headquarters there and basically allow Hamas leadership to live there and direct its terror attacks. The role of Iran is glaringly obvious as both Hamas and Iran confirmed that Iran supports Hamas. At the same time the EU and EU Member States foreign affairs apparatus pushes time and again for a policy that essentially supports Turkey, Qatar and Iran. The foreign affairs apparatus aims for political, security and trade agreements with these countries. These countries benefit from these agreements and then channel a significant amount of money to entities like Hamas. Turkey furthermore supports Al Qaida in Syria (HTS) and supported ISIS (up to at least 2018) and other jihadist groups in Syria. Iran supports Hizbollah and Islamist forces in Iraq and Syria as well as the Houthi’s. The EU relation with Pakistan shows the same pattern. The trade agreement with Pakistan is kept and prolonged while Pakistan at the same time supports the Taliban and other extremists. The EU is in this way effectively investing in extremism. The result of that extremism is violence, chaos and misery wherever these extremists ‘rule’. And the consequence of these situations we see increased migration to Europe and terrorism in Europe as well as a much more challenging situation with regard to integration among those coming to Europe. There is for example a direct connection between additional income for the Iranian economy and Hamas. The EU pushed until very recently for the nuclear deal with Iran (JCPOA). That meant that EU Member States increased trade to Iran. However, almost all large companies in Iran are in the hands of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). The IRGC in turn is funding Hamas and Hezbollah and all other Iranian proxies (like in Syria and Iraq). Due to these Iranian proxies there is more violence in countries like Syria and that leads to increased migration to Europe. In effect the EU and EU Member States foreign policy have enabled a money stream that increased migration to Europe. Any income to Europe resulting from the trade with Iran is therefore surpassed many times by the costs that come from the consequences of that trade. It needs to be noted that any income ended up with the owners (shareholders) of large companies and the costs went to the taxpayers. At the same time there is a significant degree of political appeasement of the regimes that support extremism outside their own borders. The massive attacks by Turkey against the civilian populations in North-East Syria and Iraq have not resulted in any condemnation of these attacks. I can only note that while many EU (and other) civil servants protested publicly against the EU policy regarding the war between Israel and Hamas, these same civil servants have not raised their voice in a similar way over the EU appeasement of the Turkish aggression against civilian populations. Simultaneously, it is obvious that civil servants in both foreign Ministries in Member States and in the EEAS do not want that the IRGC is put on the terror list regardless of the facts on the ground and the repeated demands from both national Parliaments of EU Member States as well as the European Parliament. This foreign policy that enables and appeases the funders and supporters of extremism is inconsistent, contradictory to human rights and far too expensive for the taxpayer. Instead we need to first act again based on the ‘do no harm’ principle. That means ending the appeasement policy towards Turkey, Iran and other countries that actively fund and support extremism outside their own borders. Secondly we need to turn the tables and decrease the costs for taxpayers by putting serious pressure on these countries. In the case of Turkey it means that Parliaments and Governments of NATO members explicitly state that they will not protect this Turkey if it is ever being attacked as they cannot defend a country that funds extremism. In the case of Iran it means putting the IRGC on the terror list. In the case of both Turkey and Iran it means that the rights of the ethnic minorities in both countries need to be taken as seriously as the situation of the Palestinians. That means that based on the principles of equality and non-discrimination (also on ethnic grounds), forms of self-determination of the various ethnic groups need to be considered as part of EU foreign policy as well as the foreign policy of EU Member States. Doing so will be a major change in which standing against extremism and taking human rights seriously results in a serious reduction of costs for European taxpayers. With sincere Christian greetings, Johannes de Jong