What does the defeat of David Cameron, or of the U.K., in the face of Jean-Claude Juncker mean? Why did Cameron back the wrong horse knowingly? A ballot vote was held among European leaders to nominate Juncker for the presidency of the European Commission. The voting result was a frustrating one for Cameron, who strongly opposed Juncker. A total of 26 out of 28 leaders voted for Juncker. For now, many analysts regard this only as the defeat of the Conservative Party and Cameron; however, it must be remembered that the Labour Party supported Cameron. In this case, we cannot interpret this situation as "Cameron backed the wrong horse." For us, this was a discussion about how the EU will move on. What came out victorious is a conservative finance capital, which is represented by Germany and adopts the hegemony of northern Europe over the southern countries, instead of pursuing a true policy of union.
This means that the EU, which has been getting further away from being a union for the last five years, will remain as a Germanycentered "rich club", which will treat southern Europe as a colony. These five years may cost a pretty penny for Europe, as the new map of the Middle East will be drawn and the course of the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) will be clearer in this period. Under these circumstances, a fascist figure who claims "If I am elected European Commission president, I will close Turkey out of the EU for five years", will now take the chair of Barrose. The EU, which is to elect a German-French Luxembourger fascist figure as president, has come to an end now.
I do not know whether the U.K. thinks secession from the EU; however, as Prime Minister Erdoğan said last week, if the EU continues to jerk Turkey around on Chapter 15 and Chapter 31, the former is on energy issues while the latter is about external security, Turkey will certainly introduce a new union in its east during Erdoğan's presidency. This union may be in the form of a customs union that will begin from the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) and comprise of the Caspian energy resources and markets, and then it may transform into a monetary union.
A report, which was released by the White House in 1997, mentions energy resources in the Caspian basin, Caucasia and the Middle East. Interestingly enough, this report almost determined the current self-sufficient situation of the U.S. on energy affairs. It also suggests that regional energy resources should be globalized to break the influence of Russia.
In other words, the report stressed that the Caspian, Caucasian and Middle Eastern energy resources should be globalized through Turkey and, to this end; Turkey should be supported to gain stability and democracy.
If this cannot be provided, the radical movements will cause terrorism in the region and nourish dictatorships and civil wars, a situation which will play into the hands of Russia and Iran. What should have been done in line with this report could not be done due to the Bush government's policies. The facts that are mentioned in this report have come to the surface today. It is inevitable that a union will be established in the region under the initiative of Turkey, starting from the energy and expanding to all fields of economy.
Israel will undoubtedly play a determinative role as well. At this very point, I would like to touch upon a statement by Benjamin Netanyahu during a speech at Tel Aviv University. He said, "We need to support Iraqi Kurds' request for independence. They are a society that strives for independence and they proved their moderate political attitude." This is rather important as Israel always prefers the influential position of Turkey in the region to that of Iran. In this respect, Israel does not have any other option rather than supporting the energy deals between Turkey and the KRG and the Kurdish reconciliation process, which has showed a remarkable improvement recently. Israel cannot guarantee its security and survival by pursuing an endless terrorism policy. Here, there is no other way for Israel, but it has to support Turkey's policy, which aims to extend toward the east and be influential in the Kurdish energy regions.Now, all actors in the region want to see their future.
During the Vietnam War, the most important thing which bolstered the morale of the Viet Cong army was booby traps. Walking on a dark way without knowing what your enemy will do is an overwhelmingly pathetic situation. Aside from the European countries, all of the global actors and the U.S. in particular, are trying to get out of this darkness. The U.S. is following a policy that is the total opposite of the one which made Bush president. With this new policy, the U.S. brings down the dollar and keeps the interest rates at low levels. Thus, it is heading toward a way on which it can close its deficits and can garner confidence from the middle strata. However, the EU does the opposite.
For the sake of its own interests, Germany pushes the southern countries to the edge of an abyss. If the European Central Bank's new policy of monetary expansion is not implemented, southern Europe will encounter a recession in 2015 once again. As Europe gets smaller, a new development in the Middle East will leave its mark on the 21st century.
It is possible to say that Asian growth, which began between 1978 and 1995, gained momentum in the early 21st century and took the Third Industrial Revolution to the east, will now be taken to the Eastern Europe, Middle East and Africa through Turkey. I would like to refer to Angus Maddison's book titled "Contours of the World Economy; 1-2030 AD". In this book, Maddison compares the period between 1820 and 2030 in the light of eastern and western growth rates. He says that increase of per capita income between 1952 and 1978 was 28 times bigger than it was between 1700 and 1820, while it was 3 times bigger than the period between 1820 and 1952. This was a construction process led by the U.S. The contention with the Soviet Union and armament raised the global total factor productivity, bringing the end of the golden age in Europe. 1978 is quite interesting in that Deng came into power in China and launched the extant China-based Asian development. This is also starting date of the West's recession process which began with Vietnam defeat and exacerbated by 1973 crisis. Between 1978 and 1995, Asia recovered from the colonial destruction and generated its development paradigm. The militarism was in the throes of death during the Bush government in the U.S. If Obama had not handed down the power, the world would have faced a much larger crisis. This masterpiece of Maddison tells us Eurocentric West will certainly be replaced by an eastern development.