Turkey Cracks The Whip

If Netanyahu Wants Rapprochement With Ankara, He Must Do More Than Apologize For The Mavi Marmara Killings

Philip Giraldi writes:

The Turkish connection was important because Turkey was the only predominantly Muslim country with which Israel had a truly friendly relationship. But Israel is much less important to Ankara. The prior warmth was based on common interests uniting the Israeli and Turkish militaries that never quite penetrated to the government level in Ankara, where Israel’s destabilizing role in a region that Turkey was increasingly seeing as its backyard was watched carefully. 

What is important to Erdogan is that Ankara’s strained relationship with Israel has created problems in Washington. Since the split, there have been numerous articles, mostly written by neocons, criticizing Turkey’s democratic credentials and its self-confident Islamic identity while asking whether the country is really “part of the West.” In the September 16, 2011 Washington Post Morton Abramowitz, a former U.S. Ambassador to Turkey, opined that Erdogan

now directly challenges our major alliance in the Middle East, and how far he will go is unclear … By threatening to militarily contest Israel’s blockade of Gaza … the Turkish government has laid down a serious challenge to American policy … Obama’s meeting with Erdogan on Tuesday is crucial. He can take a few important steps. He should immediately deploy 6th Fleet ships from Norfolk to the Eastern Mediterranean to signal that the United States will not tolerate even inadvertent naval clashes. He needs to make clear to Erdogan that the United States will not side with Turkey against Israel and that Turkey’s current strategy risks undermining regional stability.

In the same month, seven United States senators sent a letter to President Obama stating that

Turkey is shifting to a policy of confrontation, if not hostility, towards our allies in Israel and we urge you to mount a diplomatic offensive to reverse this course. We ask you to outline Turkey’s eroding support in Congress … and how its current ill-advised policy towards the State of Israel will also negatively reflect on U.S. Turkish relations and Turkey’s role in the future of NATO.

But the White House has never taken its eye off the ball regarding Turkey. Turkey is without any doubt the key player and most essential ally for the United States in the entire Near East region. It is frequently cited as an example of how democracy can function in a predominantly Islamic country. It is the NATO member with the largest army after that of the U.S., fought in the Korean War, has fully supported every U.S. intervention in its backyard save only Iraq in 2003, and shares long borders both with Syria and Iran. Whatever happens in Syria will largely be shaped by what Ankara decides to do, and President Obama knows it. Israel is understandably concerned about what might come out of the Syrian farrago and knows it too, so Obama was able to convince Netanyahu that if he wants to sit at the table when critical decisions are made about Syria, accommodating Turkey and Erdogan would be a necessary first step. So it was most definitely in Israel’s own interest as well as that of Washington to mend fences with Erdogan.

Netanyahu faced considerable internal opposition within his new coalition to making the call that Obama personally brokered. Netanyahu’s former Moldovan bouncer Avigdor Lieberman, who until recently provided comic relief as a foreign minister, immediately denounced the prime minister’s apology as a “serious mistake” before saying, “Such an apology harms IDF soldiers’ motivation and their willingness to go out on future missions, and strengthens the radical elements in the region. Worse still is the fact that the apology also affects Israel’s uncompromising struggle for righteousness, morality and for the morality of its soldiers.”

There was also considerable opposition from Turkey. Erdogan responded to the call somewhat reluctantly, according to Turkish sources, and only because Obama was involved. He accepted the Netanyahu apology but demanded that it first be put in writing before giving his verbal consent, reportedly because he did not trust the Israeli Prime Minister to stick with whatever wording might be agreed upon over the phone. The official Israeli version subsequently appeared in several forms in English on the Israeli Foreign Ministry website before it was agreed to by Ankara. It now reads that “Israel regrets … [due to] a number of operational mistakes … the loss of life or injury.” It agreed to “conclude an agreement on compensation/nonliability. Prime Minister Netanyahu also noted that Israel has substantially lifted the restrictions on the entry of civilian goods into the Palestinians territories, including Gaza…”

The Israeli and U.S. media initially reported that the two countries would restore full diplomatic relations, but that is incorrect. Erdogan has instructed his foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, to establish a fair level of compensation for the families of the Mavi Marmara victims as well as for the shipowners, a sum likely to exceed $20 million, before improving ties in any way. And he has not committed to returning his ambassador to Tel Aviv. Turkey is also monitoring compliance with the pledge to ease entry to Gaza and the West Bank. Davutoglu reportedly sent a strongly worded message to Netanyahu regarding Israel’s new restrictions on Gazan fisherman, which went into effect two days after the three heads of government spoke on the phone.

Israel has also taken note of an independent announcement by Turkey that Erdogan would visit Gaza and the West Bank in April, while there have been rumors in the Turkish media that the current Turkish consul general in Jerusalem, Sakir Ozkan Torunlar, will be re-designated ambassador to Palestine, meaning full recognition of the Palestinian State, with all that implies.

Possibly most important of all is the fact that the Erdogan-Netanyahu agreement did not explicitly mention legal liability. In June 2012 Israel’s own state controller investigatedthe Mavi Marmara incident and, though absolving the military, noted “essential and significant flaws” in the operation as directed by Netanyahu. A simultaneous United Nations investigation called the use of force in the raid “excessive and unreasonable.” The Turkish Justice Ministry completed its own inquiry in the summer of 2012, resulting in criminal charges being filed against four senior Israeli military officers. That trial is scheduled to begin later this year with more than 500 witnesses prepared to provide eyewitness testimony for the in absentia proceedings. It all means that the rapprochement engineered by President Obama between Israel and Turkey is still very much a work in progress, and it is Ankara that is best placed to dictate the course of further developments.

America's Bases For Invasion: Afghanistan

By Lt Col Karen Kwiatkowski



On the 10th anniversary of the US invasion of Afghanistan on October 7, US troops are still there and the withdrawal deadline of 2014 seems to be up in the air.

Retired USAF Lt Col Karen Kwiatkowski believes the US never had any intention of allowing the Afghan people to choose anything.

“If they were allowed to chose, I think we would be long gone,” she said. “It is about big cover. They cannot kick us out and we are going to stay. We build permanent bases and we want to terrorize Pakistan, Iran, and be there to look over the mountains into China.”

Karen Kwiatkowski says that the US mission in Afghanistan was “somewhat successful” from the Pentagon’s and Obama administration’s point of view.

“When the Pentagon says, ‘We are still there, we are making progress,’ in a sense they are telling the truth,” she said. “In many ways the American people have not been told what we came to Afghanistan to do. And that mission is to build bases – which we have done – and to man those bases into operating a military front against other countries in the region.”

“It is not a success for the American people, who are very tired of this,” she added. “But the real reasons that we are in Afghanistan have never been put forward.”

Kwiatkowski says the reason for the US staying in Afghanistan becomes obvious if one looks at how the US military is operating in the Middle East.

“There is a good reason in their minds why they are there, and they plan to stay,” she said. “We like these military bases too well, we like the minerals, and we like the geographic positioning Afghanistan provides our military.”

The Middle East’s New Geopolitical Map

America's Most Grievous Mistake

By PATRICK SEALE
SEPTEMBER 22, 2011
Courtesy Of "CounterPunch"

The Arab Spring is not the only revolution in town. The toppling of dictators in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya; the mounting death toll in Syria and Yemen, where the outcome is still undecided; the revival of long-suppressed Islamic movements demanding a share of power; the struggle by young revolutionaries to re-invent the Arab state — all these dramatic developments have distracted attention from another revolution of equal significance.

It is the challenge being mounted by the region’s heavyweights — Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Iran — against the hegemony which the United States and Israel have sought to exercise over them for more than half a century.

When David Ben-Gurion declared Israel’s independence on 14 May 1948, he held the view that the country’s security could be assured only if it were militarily stronger than any possible Arab combination. This became Israel’s security doctrine. The desired hegemony was achieved by the prowess of Israel’s armed forces, but also by Israel’s external alliances first with France, then with the United States.

Military superiority won Israel outstanding victories in the 1948 and 1967 wars, a less resounding victory in 1973, still more contentiously by its invasions of Lebanon in 1978, 1982 and 2006, and more reprehensively by its operation of unashamed brutality against Gaza in 2008-9 — to mention only the most significant among a host of other Israeli attacks, incursions and onslaughts against its neighbours over the past several decades.

In its early years, Israel’s hegemony was reinforced by its so-called ‘periphery’ doctrine — its attempt to neutralise the Arabs by concluding strategic alliances with neighbouring non-Arab states such as Turkey and the Shah’s Iran. Its 1979 peace treaty with Egypt also proved a vital asset over the past three decades, since it removed the most powerful country from the Arab line-up.

The collapse of Soviet power in 1989-91 contributed to the Arabs’ disarray, as did the huge success of pro-Israeli Americans in penetrating almost every institution of the American government, whether at state or federal level, most notably the U.S. Congress. The message these advocates conveyed was that the interests of America and Israel were identical and their alliance ‘unshakable.’

Over the past forty years, the United States has provided Israel with sustained political and diplomatic support, as well as massive financial and military assistance, including a guarantee, enshrined in American law, of Israel’s Qualitative Military Edge (QME) – that is to say a U.S. pledge to guarantee Israel’s ability to defeat any challenge from any of its neighbours.

Even 9/11 was turned to Israel’s advantage in convincing American opinion that Palestinian resistance to Israel was terrorism, no different from that which America itself had suffered. There followed George W. Bush’s catastrophic militarisation of American foreign policy, and the invasion, occupation and destruction of Iraq on fraudulent premises, largely engineered by neo-cons such as Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith and their colleagues at the Pentagon and in the Vice-President’s office, concerned above all to remove any possible threat to Israel from Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

The United States has sought to protect Israel’s regional nuclear monopoly by harsh sanctions against Iran, because of its nuclear activities, as well as joint U.S.-Israeli sabotage operations, such as the infiltration into Iranian computers of the Stuxnet virus. Washington has turned a blind eye to Israel’s assassination of Iranian scientists, and has followed Israel in demonizing resistance movements such as Hizbullah and Hamas as terrorist organisations.

America’s most grievous mistake, however — the source of great harm to itself, to Israel, and to peace and stability in the Middle East — has been to tolerate Israel’s continued occupation and dispossession of the Palestinians. These policies have aroused intense hate of Israel in the Arab and Muslim world and great anger at its superpower protector.

We are now witnessing a rebellion against these policies by the region’s heavyweights — in effect a rebellion against American and Israeli hegemony as spectacular as the Arab Spring itself. The message these regional powers are conveying is that the Palestine question can no longer be neglected. Israel’s land grab on the West Bank and its siege of Gaza must be ended. The Palestinians must at last be given a chance to create their own state. Their plight weighs heavily on the conscience of the world.

Turkey, long a strategic ally of Israel, has now broken with it. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has denounced it as “the West’s spoilt child.” In a passionate speech in Cairo, he warned Israel that it must “pay for its aggression and crimes.” Supporting the Palestinians in their efforts to gain UN recognition as a state was, he declared, not an option but an obligation.

Prince Turki al Faisal, a leading member of the Saudi Royal family and former intelligence chief, has publicly warned the United States that if it casts its veto against the Palestinian bid for statehood, it risks losing an ally. In a widely-noted article in the International Herald Tribune on 12 September, he wrote that “Saudi Arabia would no longer be able to cooperate with America” in the way it has since the Second World War. The “Special Relationship” between the two countries “would increasingly be seen as toxic by the vast majority of Arabs and Muslims, who demand justice for the Palestinian people.”

Last week, the American-brokered 1979 Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty — a key underpinning of Israel’s regional hegemony — came under open criticism from Egypt itself. The treaty was “not a holy book,” said Egypt’s prime minister, Dr. Essam Sharaf. It would need to be revised. Amr Moussa, the leading candidate for the Egyptian presidency, has called for the treaty’s military annexes to be reviewed so as to allow Egyptian troops to be deployed in Sinai.

As for Iran, denunciation of the United States and Israel can be expected from President Ahmadinejad when he addresses the UN General Assembly in the coming days. The failure to engage with Iran — demonising it as a threat to the whole world, rather than working to incorporate it into the security architecture of the Gulf region — has been one of Obama’s gravest policy mistakes.

Turkey, Iran and Egypt, heirs to ancient civilizations, are thus asserting themselves against what they see as an Israeli upstart. Saudi Arabia, the region’s oil and financial giant, guardian of Islam’s holiest sites, is breaking free from the constraints of the American alliance.

Israel stands accused. Will it heed the message or shoot the messenger? If true to its past form, it might well try to fight its way out of the box in which it now finds itself, further destabilising the region and attracting to itself further opprobrium.

As for the United States, bound hand and foot by Israeli interests, it seems to have abdicated the leading role in the Arab-Israeli peace process it has played for so long — but to so little effect. Disillusion with President Barack Obama is now total. Others must now take up the baton. Many believe the time has come to break the dangerous stalemate with some coercive diplomacy. Will Europe take up the challenge?

Patrick Seale is a leading British writer on the Middle East. His latest book is The Struggle for Arab Independence: Riad el-Solh and the Makers of the Modern Middle East (Cambridge University Press).

Copyright © 2011 Patrick Seale .

Turkey Emerges As New Power Of Muslim World

By: Mohammad Jamil
Published: September 04, 2011
Courtesy Of "The Nation Newspaper (Pakistan)"

Exasperated by Israel’s intransigence and its refusal to apologise and pay compensation to the families of those killed in the Israeli raid on the flotilla, Turkey expelled Israel’s envoy, downgraded diplomatic relations and suspended all military agreements with Israel. Earlier, the UN report described the excessive use of force by Israel; however it said that blockade was legal and appropriate. This is travesty of the truth, as the flotilla was in the international waters, therefore Israel’s raid cannot be described legal or appropriate in any case. 

Since 2008 when Israel invaded Gaza, and after bombardment of Gaza in December 2008 and January 2009, relations between Turkey and Israel had turned very sour. In January 2009 at the World Economic Forum in Davos in Switzerland, Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan had blasted Israel’s President Shimon Peres stating: “You kill people. I remember the children who died on beaches.” 

In May 2010 when Israeli naval commandos raided the flotilla carrying aid for Palestinians, many countries of the world had condemned Israel for blatant violations of international law. Twenty Arab nations had joined in expressing grave concern and condemnation of the Israeli aggression on Gaza-bound aid ships, killing nine human rights activists and injuring scores of others. The Organisation of Islamic Conference did not go beyond ‘noble sentiments’ and failed to mobilise the world opinion against atrocities on the Palestinians. Of course, a joint statement by Turkey and 20 Arab nations had called on the United Nations to investigate in a credible, thorough and transparent manner Israel’s assault on aid ship. Muslim leaders had rallied around Turkey in the ‘Conference on interaction and confidence building measures in Asia’ (CICA), backing their host’s call for Israel to end its blockade of Gaza immediately.

Once close ally of the US and Israel, Turkey’s relations have soured since Erdogan started supporting Palestinian cause after an Israeli offensive in Gaza in 2008 and consequent embargo. Turkey was in touch with other countries of the world seeking their help to pressurise Israel into ending the embargo, but to no avail. Also being fed up with ever-increasing conditions by the European Union for accepting Turkey in its fold, Turkey started looking eastward. And there appears to be a paradigm shift in its foreign policy. Of course, Israel’s policy towards Palestinians has been the basic reason for this change. 

Many analysts considered the projection of the Israeli military might in Gaza, West Bank or in Lebanon as demonstration of a baser bellicosity of an inebriated state that drew its strength from the world’s sole superpower – the US. 

Because of unqualified support of sole superpower America, Israel has defied the United Nations Security Council’s resolutions, orders from International Court of Justice to stop settlement activity in the West Bank, and showed utter disregard to the pacts and agreements it signed to ensure an independent Palestinian state. This minuscule country has so much control on decisions made by the US and other powerful nations that it refuses to abide by international laws and treaties with impunity. Moreover, it is the only country that could get away with assassinating its enemies on foreign soil. Had any other country flouted the international law and covenants, the United Nations Security Council would have passed resolutions and slapped harsh sanctions on that country.

In 2009, Turkey had barred Israel from the air drill (exercise) with Nato, but called off the international drill after the US and Italy pulled out in protest over Israel’s exclusion. For years the joint military operation ‘Anatolian Eagle’ was emblematic of the strong relations between Israel and Turkey. Having that said, Turkey is playing a greater role in the international affairs today. Reportedly, it is involved in creating an understanding between the Taliban and Afghan government. It is hoped that one day Turkey would also support the cause of people of Kashmir. Today, Turkey’s leadership is taking independent decisions because it has the political acumen and is also backed by the people’s power. Turkey reflects aspirations of the Muslim ummah, and is poised to emerge as leader of the Muslim World. Its leadership has put together a strategic plan that aims to make Turkey a world power by 2023. Leaders of other Muslim countries should emulate Turkey’s leadership and start taking independent decisions.

Genocidal politics and the Somali famine

Somali militia, as well as other armed forces active in the region, have played a major role in creating the conditions for the current famine in Somalia [EPA]


The Blame For Somalia's Devastating Famine Should Not Be Levelled At The Weather, But At Geopolitics and Armed Militia.

By Abdi Ismail Samatar
Last Modified: 30 Jul 2011 09:26
Courtesy Of "Al-Jazeera"


Droughts are common in the Somali peninsula, but only an exceptional one produces famine. For instance, the Horn of Africa drought of 1984 did not produce famine in Somalia, while the Ethiopian population was devastated. The latter country suffered famine because the military government of the time was engaged in a civil war, and did not come to the rescue of its people.

Ten years earlier, in the mid-1970s, there was a prolonged drought, known as "dabadeer" ["the long-tailed"], in several parts of Somalia. Fortunately, this drought did not lead to mass starvation because the Somali government moved quickly to assist the people. They mobilised the population and sought the assistance of international allies to deliver food and water to the needy.

Somalia's last major famine was in 1992 and was not caused by drought. Nearly 300,000 innocent people starved to death because of sectarian politics. The epicentre of that famine was in Bay, one of the country's most productive agricultural regions, and starvation was induced by warlords who used food as a weapon against farmers and pastoralists.

Marauding gangs had invaded the region after the collapse of the Somali state in 1991 and looted farmers' harvests. The country's major warlord wanted to capture the region, so did not allow food aid to reach the desperate population. Reports told of unimaginable suffering long before TV images of ruined lives reached millions around the world. It was only then that US president George HW Bush decided to send US troops to the country to enable food to reach the indigent population.

The climatic record show that droughts frequently occur in the Somali peninsula, but have not produced famines over the past fifty years, until 2011. However, the UN and other international actors have been arguing about the devastating drought in the area for nearly a year, while only a handful of scholars and activists were alarmed by the creeping famine. What thoughtful people must ask is: "Why famine now?"

Who Is To Blame?

Click here for further in-depth coverage

The Somali people in the affected regions have been made vulnerable to ecological disturbances because of several political and military forces. These include the US "War on Terror", the al-Shabaab terrorist group, Somalia's Transitional Federal Government (TFG), the Ethiopian invasion of Somalia and its continuous political and military involvement there, and finally East Africa's Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) and the UN.

These actors have created circumstances in which local food resources were exhausted and assistance from outside was denied or delayed until tens of thousands of people starved.

Exactly what role did each of these forces play in manufacturing the famine? First, the US agenda in Somalia has been to fight what it calls "Islamic terrorists", and al-Shabaab in particular. Since the bombing of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, and especially since 9/11, clandestine operations were conducted to snatch "terrorists" and dry up their support base in Somalia. These operations sought assistance from several of Mogadishu's warlords, who formed the "Alliance for the Restoration of Peace and Counter-Terrorism" in 2005.

Somalis despised this alliance and their patron, and ultimately turned against them under the leadership of the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC) in 2006. The UIC defeated the warlords, restored peace to Mogadishu for the first time in 15 years, and brought most of southern Somalia under its ambit.

Consequently, the US and its Ethiopian ally claimed that these Islamists were terrorists and therefore a menace to the region. In contrast, the vast majority of Somalis supported the UIC and pleaded with the international community to engage them peacefully. But the peace did not last. The US-supported Ethiopian invasion begun in December 2006 and displaced more than a million people and killed close to 15,000 civilians. Those displaced then are part of today's famine victims. Somalia counterattacked, and Ethiopia was compelled to withdraw the bulk of its troops from Somalia. But the dynamics generated by the Ethiopian invasion continue to destabilise the country.

Second, IGAD and the international community picked up where the Ethiopians left off, by designing a new TFG - led by the faction of the UICs most amenable to the international community, and particularly to the US agenda. The new regime marginalised the forces that compelled Ethiopia to withdraw from Somalia. Consequently, the TFG came to control only those areas in Mogadishu under the command of the African Union force.

A new civil war ensued between the TFG and its opponents, and within a month much of southern Somalia fell under the sway of al-Shabaab and its affiliates. Once in power, the TFG became known for its corruption, incompetence, and internal strife. Propped up by the international community, the regime in Mogadishu has been oblivious to the growing crisis, which ultimately led to the death of nearly 80,000 of its "citizens". It has yet to articulate a plan of actions to rescue its population. Engulfed in an internal power struggle, the regime has failed to put aside sectarian politics to save the population.

Al-Shabaab Fails To Govern

The drought was declared a famine when "it was no longer possible to conceal the deaths of almost 80,000 people from starvation"

Third, al-Shabaab - originally the youth wing of the UIC - declared its affiliation with al-Qaeda, and were identified as a terrorist group by the UN and the US, and have been consequently targeted by US forces. The UN and the US have blocked food shipment to the areas that al-Shabaab controls in order to deny them these supplies. Al-Shabaab wants to establish an Islamic state, but unfortunately, it has failed to put in place even the most rudimentary infrastructure to govern the region or provide services.

Furthermore, al-Shabaab has denied the population the opportunity to organise itself to meet the challenges of the livelihood crisis. Thus, despite the fact that the two epicentres (Lower Shabeele and Bakool) of the famine are in al-Shabaab hands, they have failed to appeal even to the Islamic world for assistance. Most insidiously, they continue to deny the existence of significant famine conditions in the area and have consequently reneged on the permission they recently gave to the world community to deliver food to the starving.

Normally, societies have three lines of defence against mass starvation: local capacity, national government and the international community. When a disaster hits a region, the first help comes from local administrations and the communities themselves. If events overwhelm the first responders, then the national government takes charge of operations; and when the crisis exceeds the wherewithal of the nation, international actors come to the rescue.

It is clear that all three levels of livelihood protections have failed in Somalia. Al-Shabaab has prohibited the local population from organising their municipal governments and charities to fend off the disaster. Similarly, Somalia's national government, which is beholden to sectarian leadership and international patrons, has been oblivious to the emerging calamity, and has thwarted the international community from coming to its aid.

The African Union, the UN, the EU, and the US continued to describe the famine as a drought until July 18, when it was no longer possible to conceal the deaths of almost 80,000 people from starvation. The United States and its allies have been so obsessed with defeating al-Shabaab that they have ignored the fate of the millions of people who live in areas controlled by al-Shabaab.

Finally, callous uses of military and political power by all actors against poor people have produced a catastrophic famine. Altering the behaviour of the powerful would be tantamount to a revolution. But before such a transformation can be imagined, lives must be saved by immediately dropping food and water in villages and settlements in the region. Such urgent distribution of life's necessities will keep people in their homes before a humane scheme of reconstruction could begin.

What is ultimately required is the establishment, by Somalis with the genuine assistance of others, of a national government that is accountable to the people. Such a government is the best defence against famine, as well as against terrorism.

Abdi Ismail Samatar is a professor of geography at the University of Minnesota and a research fellow at the University of Pretoria, South Africa. 

The Mediterranean Union: Emergence Of A New Order

World Geopolitics and The Battle For The Mediterranean

By Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
November 5, 2010
Courtesy Of "Global Research"

PART III

In PART I  of this study, the long-term plans for creating a Mediterranean Union, which predate Nicolas Sarkozy by many years, were revealed as were U.S. and E.U. efforts to turn the Middle East and North Africa into free-trade zones and economic territories. The implementation of what is now called the “Union of the Mediterranean” was a project planned through the 1995 Barcelona Process and the U.S. Middle East Free Trade Area (MEFTA).  

Also discussed were Franco-German plans for extending the borders of the European Union in synchronization with the “Global War on Terror.” The case of Libya was also discussed to expose the economic agendas of the E.U. and America. Finally the earlier portion of this text also confirmed the roles of Germany and the European Union as a whole in establishing the Mediterranean Union.

In PART II of the text, NATO expansion in the Mediterranean Basin was discussed through NATO’s “Mediterranean Dialogue”  and its “Mediterranean Initiative” as a means of paving the way for E.U. expansion and control. The process follows the same steps as NATO and E.U. expansion in Eastern Europe. The projection for the inclusion of Israel in the E.U. and NATO were also addressed, as well as the role of securing energy resources and markets in the Middle East and North Africa.

The Barcelona Process and the Informal 1995 Declaration of a Mediterranean Union

On February 10, 2008 the E.U. Commissioner for Information Society and Media, Viviane Reding reacted to scepticism about the Mediterranean Union on Deutsche Welle Television (DW-TV). Commissioner Reding was told by her interviewer that sceptics in the E.U. fear that the Mediterranean Union will tear the E.U. apart. Reding, a Luxembourger, responded that the Mediterranean Union was already put in place in 1995 through the Barcelona Process and that at the time, in 2008, the entity was merely being fine-tuned: “We already have a Mediterranean Union with the [creation of the] Barcelona Process, where the E.U. formed a solidarity treaty with the countries of the Southern Mediterranean. The correct action [for the E.U.] is to build on that.” [1]

The three main stated objectives of the Barcelona Process or the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership that was established in Spain are stated through the Barcelona Declaration;

(1) The definition of a common area of peace and stability through the reinforcement of political and security dialogue.

(2) The construction of a zone of shared prosperity through an economic and financial partnership and the gradual establishment of a free-trade area.
(3) The rapprochement between peoples through a social, cultural, and human partnership aimed at encouraging understanding between cultures and exchanged between civil societies.

These principles are clearly tied to the creation of joint economic, political, and military-security spheres; the same ties that parallel the principles behind the formation of the European Union. Yet, the motives and agenda behind these principles are not as benign as they are presented. Actions speak louder than words. There is a great deal more to the larger picture of this supranational project.

One should ask, if the objectives behind this process were benign, why all the secrecy and why the deceit? Why the gradual brinkmanship of the project over time? Most importantly, why the use of threats, such as in the cases of Libya and Syria? Or military means, using violence and murder, such as in the cases of the Palestinian Territories and Lebanon, to bring about the materialization of the process?

The answer is simply that this process will benefit a select few circles in both the E.U. and the Mediterranean region and not the majority of citizens. The Mediterranean Union, along with the system of global governance that is being weaved into place, will bring about inescapable poverty and under its framework economic class will go down a road where it will virtually be fixed like a caste in the future.

Union of Inequity: Cheap Labour, Worker Immobility, Guest Workers, and the Mediterranean Union

“Even the so-called Democracy of Athens and the Platonic Utopia were based on domestic and industrial slavery.”

-Sir Halford J. Mackinder (Democratic Ideals and Reality, 1919)

The Mediterranean Union at its roots is not designed as an equal partnership for all its future members. Nor is it about serving the citizens of these countries. The citizens of Turkey, the Balkans, and the Southern Mediterranean will be treated as second-class and third-class citizens.

Under the current framework of the E.U. it is not in the European Union’s economic interests to admit Turkey as a full E.U. member. States like Germany in the Western European half of the E.U. benefit from the cheap migrant labour forces from Turkey that are called “guest workers.” If Turkey were to become a full E.U. member these Turkish workers and Turkey will gain equal rights that the E.U. does not want to grant them. This would include the right of Turkish workers to be treated in the same manner as nationals of the host countries in every way, including having equal wage levels and being able to benefit from the host nations public services. This would also give Turks mobility rights in the European Union: free movement, the right to look for other employers (the right of choice), and the right to be accompanied by their families. [2]

The same concept would apply to the Arab nations of the Southern Mediterranean, like Egypt with its large work force. The E.U. has no intention on granting these countries any equal status in a relationship of peers. This is why there is a rush to change migration laws in the European Union. The basis of a “special relationship” or “special partnership” is in reality a subordinate position.

It should also be noted that the E.U. is not a union of fair treatment and equity either: Eastern European members of the European Union, called the “European Union-Eight” and the “European Union-Eight plus Two” are also legally subordinated within the frameworks of the E.U. in regards to their relationships with the original fifteen members of the E.U., the “European Union-Fifteen.” [3] E.U. prosperity is also for a few and gross differences, which in many cases have been amplified, remain between Western Europe and Eastern Europe.

Aside from securing energy supplies and natural resources, another design of the Mediterranean Union is to harness the substantially large work forces in the Southern Mediterranean, while reducing dependency on cheap-labour from China and other Asian countries. The Southern Mediterranean is also the “near abroad” of the European Union and the establishment of a formal cheap-labour market in the Southern Mediterranean that is deeply tied to the E.U. would cut geographic distance, wait time, transportation costs, fuel consumption, and dependence on China in regards to products manufactured by cheap-labour.

To a certain extent, Chinese leverage over the E.U. would also be dealt a strategic blow. The E.U., like the U.S., is also looking for a means to reduce its dependence on the Chinese before Beijing can be challenged any further over global resources and raw materials. The Mediterranean Union provides a partial answer to this quest against China and other nations with substantially large populations, such as India and Brazil. Once dependence on the Chinese is reduced then energy supplies to China can be challenged with greater effort and possibly cut.
Preparations for Amalgamation: Changing E.U. migratory laws in anticipation for the Mediterranean Union?
The underlying economic motives for the Mediterranean Union are the reasons why the E.U. is making a mad dash to change its migratory laws. The new regulations and laws will touch immigrants, emigrants, migrant workers, tourists, and other visitors. Fingerprinting, scanning, and collecting information on anyone crossing into or outside of the borders of the E.U. will become standard procedure. This process is also linked to the European Security Strategy, which is an E.U. replication of the strategic doctrine of post-September 11, 2001 America.

Also, the E.U. has announced that it plans on setting up an American-style visa regime for qualified foreign workers seeking entrance into the bloc. Along these lines an E.U. “blue card” that would be similar to the American “green card” would be unveiled as a pass for special residency in the European Union. Biometric identity management security systems are being upgraded and introduced within the European Union. One such system is BioDev II, which uses fingerprinting technology linked to E.U. entrance visas. The system has been developed by Motorola and is in us in France, Britain, Spain, Portugal, Germany, Austria, Belgium, and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg under the supervision of the executive branch of the E.U., the European Commission.

The changes to migratory laws in the E.U. are being brought about as a means to obstruct the free flow of migrant workers from the Southern Mediterranean countries that are expected to gravitate towards the countries of the Northern Mediterranean in search of better wages and jobs as soon as the Mediterranean Union is formalized. A neo-liberal paradigm of imparity is being strengthened and reinforced within the Mediterranean Union between capital and labour. Capital will be free to move within the Mediterranean with little regulation, whereas labour forces and individuals from the South Mediterranean will be restricted in their movements and rendered immobile.

E.U. border security and frontier control with non-E.U. countries in the Balkans, North Africa, the Middle East, and the former U.S.S.R. have been defined as major priorities for the European Union. Foreigners, including migrant or guest workers, will have to start routinely carrying identity cards and documents on them. The European Border Surveillance System (EUROSUR) is being set up to monitor all E.U. border points using high resolution satellites and unmanned aircraft for migrant movements.

Frontex, a border intelligence agency with its headquarters in Warsaw, the Polish capital, has also been created by the E.U. to monitor all E.U. borders and frontiers. The Warsaw-based agency became operational on October 3, 2005. Additional emphasis has been placed on Ceuta and Melilla as frontier points, which include radar detection and sensory systems and an entire network of cameras to monitor migrant movements into the European Union. Ceuta and Melilla are tiny Spanish territorial positions in North Africa which Spain gained in 1912 as part of Spanish Morocco and has since refused to return to Morocco.
Fortress Europe and the Economic Motivations hiding behind a Global “Security Agenda”
The so-called reforms being brought about in the E.U. are conveniently justified to combat three elements: terrorism, illegal migratory movements, and crime. The dawning of the Mediterranean Union, in league with the global terrorism scare, will however also bring about greater control over E.U. citizens. Despite the creation of the Schengen Zone the passengers that will travel between different E.U. states or those travelling on domestic flights will also have to hand over a large amount of personal information. In Britain this includes credit card numbers and cellular phone numbers. [4] The information will be stored for thirteen years and could be used to profile any individual, including profiling their purchases through credit card records and their private network of relationships through a log of telephone contacts.

Biometrics has been undraped as a major cornerstone of the European Union. Mandatory fingerprinting of all travellers has also been unveiled in 2008 by the European Commission as a new procedure to be introduced throughout the bloc. All visitors crossing E.U. borders will also be monitored. All non-citizens, including those from countries like Canada which are allowed to travel to the E.U. without visas, would be forced to submit biometric data to gain entrance into or to even travel through the European Union. On February 13, 2008 Brussels announced a scheme to collect large amounts of personal information on every traveller entering or departing the European Union. This figure could be up to about nineteen pieces of personal information. [5] In 2007 an agreement was also reached by the E.U. and the U.S. to supply the U.S. Department of Homeland Security with nineteen pieces of information about individuals travelling from the E.U. to the United States. [6]

By mid-2009, all E.U. members declared they will issue passports with electronically archived fingerprints. E.U. member states, like Germany, also plan to start sharing fingerprint and deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) data with the U.S. government through an automated exchange system modelled on the outlines of the European Union’s 2005 Prüm (Pruem) Treaty. [7] The Treaty of Prüm outlines the creation of a massive fingerprint information and DNA date exchange bank in the E.U. that has been nicknamed “Big Brother Europe” by its opponents inside the European Parliament (Europarl).

The new E.U. security measures would also reduce the rights guaranteed by U.N. agreements to asylum seekers trying to attain refugee status. Individuals trying to escape state persecution in North Africa or the Middle East for advocating greater freedom and for labour rights will now be put in a dangerous situation. The European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) has protested that the sweeping changes in the E.U. will make it more difficult to stay within the E.U. for asylum seekers while their requests are being reviewed. The E.U. is tactilely helping crush dissent in the Middle East and North Africa towards autocratic rulers and absolute monarchs. A safe haven for opposition movements will be systematically eliminated. In no uncertain terms it is clear that the E.U. is not seeking to nurture freedom or democratic values, but is strengthening the stranglehold of its autocratic allies that rule the Middle East and North Africa.

The changes that are expected by the European Commission to be ingrained within the E.U. between the years 2010 and 2015 are not about terrorism or fighting crime, but about the control of wages, labour markets, and labour supply. Behind the security and crime fighting agendas sits the real agenda of controlling migratory movements of people and wages. The control of labour forces — both domestic and foreign — is the main purpose of the new migratory reforms in the European Union. Knowing this it is of little wonder that the first joint summit of the Arab League and the E.U. held in Malta was the scene of not only major free-trade talks, but also major talks on migration control between the E.U. and the Arab World. According to Franco Frattini, the E.U. Justice Commissioner, the prime motive for the new regulations and laws is to control the flow of migrant workers into the European Union. According to Commissioner Frattini more than half the illegal immigrants entering the E.U. do so with valid documents, but stay past the expiration date of their permits.

If one were to live in a city where the only form of employment was a coal mine and there was no means to leave the city then one would have no choice but to work at the coal mine. Control of labour movement is a cornerstone to the socio-economic objectives of the U.S., the E.U., the World Bank, and a league of associated international financial institutions (IFIs). By rendering work forces immobile in any given geographic locality the rights of employment choice and occupational alternatives are removed and a new form of monopoly is established — a forced acceptance of work on whole pools of individuals. Rising fuel prices are also adding to the erosion of mobility rights.

The security agenda behind controlling movements is heavily tied to economic objectives, as are the international disease scares like avian influenza (bird flu) and the swine flue that lock up human movement. Control of mobility in the oceans and international waters of the world is also part of this objective. The internationally illegal Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) was initiated by the U.S. government, with the support of the E.U., in 2003 as part of the “Global War on Terror.” The Proliferation Security Initiative is presented as a means to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), however it can be applied to bring about a hold over global maritime mobility. The strategy is a threat to international movement on the high seas and maritime trade. There is good reason why it is illegal under international law and the 1982 U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Industrial De-location in the European Union and the Global Economic Crisis

This process of industrial de-location has already been underway in the E.U. for years, under which industries have been relocated to Eastern Europe and other global regions. Under this neo-liberal paradigm jobs and industries can gradually be removed from wealthier E.U. states to Southern Mediterranean nations, where cheap and immobile labour forces will be awaiting.

This relationship is analogous to the events that occurred in North America during the 1990s when jobs and whole industrial sectors where relocated from Canada and the U.S. to Mexico where cheap-labour forces were waiting. In North America this process unfolded under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and resulted in a decline in living standards or the quality of life. Costs of living went up, wages experienced a decline, and a gap emerged between costs of living and wages which started to eat away at the middle class.

The global economic crisis is the ultimate form of shock therapy for industrial de-location and reconfiguration. The global economic crisis has helped advance the industrial de-location that had started decades earlier. In these terms, the global economic crisis is not about financial errors by the banking sector, but about pushing industrial de-location and re-engineering the socio-economic order of the globe under the guise of state austerity measures.

Triggering a Decline of Wages in both the E.U. and the Mediterranean: Challenging China and displacing Asian labour markets?

The wages of the cheap-labour market in China can also be further lowered by opening a cheap-labour market in the European Union’s “near abroad.” This is part of the global “race to the bottom” where regulatory standards in regards to labour wages are being increasingly dismantled. This process in effect facilitates a state of cannibalism or economic decomposition within the effected labour markets and ultimately brings about a decline in living standards.

If major cheap-labour markets like the Chinese market start to lower their wages to stay competitive with a reconfigured cheap-labour market controlled by the E.U. that would emerge in the Southern Mediterranean, then this could eventually result in much lower wages in other global labour markets. Other labour markets would lower their wages as part of an effort to keep their respective markets open or in neo-liberal terms as “a  means of staying competitive.” Ultimately the results would have worldwide ramifications for lowering global wages that would also effect the citizens of the E.U., Japan, and North America. This is one aspect of the “race to the bottom” and it is part of a cycle that fuels itself into a downward spiral.

With the backdrop of the global economic crises, what is unwinding itself is a global levelling of wages. Wage levels within the E.U. are progressively experiencing a decline and being brought downwards. The labour laws protecting the wages and standards of E.U. citizens are being de-railed too. De-regulation and degeneration are the orders of the day. Before the “race to the bottom” and these measures were justified by E.U. officials through neo-liberal assertions that wages need to be lowered because of the need for “competitiveness.” Now austerity measures are being used as justification for reform and exploitation, because of the convenience of the global economic crisis.

Aside from exploitation of the work force and surplus labour in the Southern Mediterranean the remaining national assets in these countries, like in Eastern Europe after the end of the Cold War, will be privatized further and privately owned. This process will go hand-in-hand with the gradual entrenchment of higher costs of living that will further marginalize local populations to sell private property, private assets, or any other means of income out of desperation — decisions that will lock them into a neo-liberal induced state of poverty.

Expanding the European Union: The European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP)

“Even in an era of globalisation, geography is still important.”

-A Secure Europe in a Better World: The European Security Strategy (December 12, 2003)

The European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) is a means to expanding the European Union or creating additional layers or satellites to the E.U., like the Mediterranean Union. The European Commission subtly elucidates on these expansionist intentions when describing the ENP: “The European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) was developed in 2004, with the objective of avoiding the emergence of new dividing lines between the enlarged [European Union] and our neighbours and instead strengthening the prosperity, stability and security of all concerned.” [8] Special attention should be given to the European Commission’s stated “objective of avoiding the emergence of new dividing lines between the enlarged [European Union]” and its neighbours in the Balkans, the former U.S.S.R., the Middle East, and North Africa. [9] When removing fine lines, meaning borders (which are not necessarily physical), of separation what is left but some form of harmonization or assimilation?

The ENP also provides funding through so-called “financial instruments” such as the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI) for macro-economic reforms and economic restructuring that includes the privatization of the national economies of the countries participating in the program. After the 2006 Israeli war against Lebanon the Lebanese government agreed through the European Union-Lebanon ENP Action Plan and the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI) to accelerate the privatization of the Lebanese economy through international assistance, which means through the directorship of the U.S. and the European Union. The ENPI are categorized into those ENPI covering the “East” (Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union) and those ENPI covering the “South” (the countries of the Mediterranean Basin, specifically Israel and the Arab countries of North Africa and the Middle East).

The process has resounding resemblances to World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) programs. The ENP funding has been administered to all of the European Union’s frontiers in Eastern Europe, the former U.S.S.R, North Africa, and the Middle East through so-called democratization programs, stabilization initiatives, and humanitarian programs that include food aid. Recipients of ENP funding include Serbia, Ukraine, Moldava, Albania, Georgia, and the Arab countries that border the Mediterranean Sea. In the Balkans the Stabilization and Association Process (SAP) has also been at work, which includes so-called stabilization of national economies through action plans drawn by the E.U. involving country reports. E.U. assistance and aid is tied to conditionalities that are drawn up by the European Commission in Brussels, which include the privatization of state infrastructure that is bought by British, French, German, Dutch, Italian, and American companies amongst others.

In 2007 the executive arm of the E.U. also formed the Neighbourhood Investment Fund. The purpose of the Neighbourhood Investment Fund, which will be active until 2013, is to support international financial institution (IFI) lending from such organizations as the World Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) in ENP partner countries. Amongst the Arab countries of the Mediterranean, since 2002, the European Investment bank is also heavily involved in this process under the mandate of the ENP and the Facility for Euro-Mediterranean Investment and Partnership (FEMIP). This further cultivates the chains of privatization.

The Barcelona Process is also linked to the ENP. Under the Barcelona Process from the years 2007 to 2010 the Kingdom of Morocco is to receive 654 million euros, Algeria is to receive 220 million euros, Tunisia 300 million euros, Egypt 558 million euros, the Palestinian Authority under Mahmoud Abbas is to receive in 632 euros, Syria is to receive 130 million euros, and Israel is to collect 8 million euros.

Betrayal on the European Union’s Frontiers: The Disloyal Establishments of the Mediterranean

The continuum of Franco-German policy cuts across the lines of political parties and government administrations. Nicolas Sarkozy’s remarks about Turkey’s future in regards to the E.U. are almost similar to those of members of the federal administration of Gerhard Schröder (Schroeder) in Germany. The full inclusion of Turkey in the E.U. is tentative in nature. France has repeatedly said that Turkey will not be admitted into the E.U., but will enjoy a “special relationship” with the European Union. [10]

The relationships that are planned for Turkey and the Arab states of the Mediterranean Sea with the E.U. are essentially those of E.U. territories or economic dependencies with secondary privileges. The Mediterranean Union is destined to be a second-class periphery for the E.U. that will be subservient in nature. Through such an arrangement the nations of the Middle East and North Africa will be reduced to economic colonies.

At the same time Turkey is integrating itself with the economies of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, and Libya in various ways and through free-trade agreements. Many analysts believe that this, along with Turkish agreements with the Russian Federation, constitutes a shift in the Turkish position. This shift appears as being one that is against Turkey’s NATO allies and Israel. Tehran and Damascus also give the impression that they believe that a regional bloc and common market is being established by them in alliance with Ankara and with the Iranian-Syrian Awliyaa (Alliance) as its nucleus. Tehran is also moving closer to Georgia, even though Tbilisi is a staunch ally of the E.U. and America. 

Yet, what Turkey is doing is precisely what American geo-strategists have outlined for decades to rein in Iran and Syria through economic integration. For example, Zbigniew Brzezinski has stated: “American long-range interests in Eurasia would be better served by abandoning existing U.S. objections to closer Turkish-Iranian economic cooperation, especially in the construction of new pipelines, and also to the construction of other links between Iran, [the Republic of] Azerbaijan, and Turkmenistan.” [11]

In Lebanon, where the country is tittering between the so-called West and the Iranian-Syrian Awliyaaa, social change is being instituted through austerity measures tied to the national debt of Lebanon. Lebanon ranks as one of the most heavily indebted countries on the planet. The Lebanese debt to foreign lenders has been accumulated by what is the March 14 Alliance portion of the government in Beirut and their predecessors. Control over natural gas fields off the Lebanese coast,  in the waters of the Eastern Mediterranean, could also be traded off as a means of servicing the Lebanese national debt.

The debt being accumulated by Lebanon and the nations of the littoral of the Mediterranean is a strategy to bypass popular sentiment through economical means. At the end of the day making bread is an important factor for the decisions of most people. All around the Mediterranean social change is being brought about through economic change.

The European Security Strategy: An Anglo-American and Franco-German Compact for Eurasia
Looking beyond the diplomatic jargon and the noise it is clear that expanding the borders of the European Union is the force behind the ENP. The ENP tackles the directives of the European Security Strategy, an E.U. document that was put together through Paris and Berlin that emerged in Brussels on December 12, 2003 after a series of meeting between the Anglo-American alliance and the Franco-German entente. It was at this time on December 16, 2003 that President Jacques Chirac and Chancellor Gerhard Schröder cancelled Iraqi financial debts to France and Germany after making arrangements with Washington, D.C. and London. This was the start of the rapprochement between the Franco-German and Anglo-American sides that resulted in an agreement to share the spoils of war in the Middle East and North Africa. The European Security Strategy is a product of the Franco-German and Anglo-American agreement to carve up the world into spheres of management.

Brzezinski has described the E.U. as the American bridgehead in Eurasia. All signs seem to indicate that France and Germany, as Anglo-American partners, have agreed to become the Anglo-American bridgehead in Eurasia. The European Security Strategy is the source for redefining the European Union security borders in concert with both Franco-German and Anglo-American interests. E.U. expansion is fully supported by America. The E.U. security document in fact states: “The United States has played a critical role in European integration and European security, in particular through NATO. The end of the Cold War has left the United States in a dominant position as a military actor. However, no single country is able to tackle today's complex problems on its own.” [12]

To add to this, the Anglo-American and Franco-German sides have been in the process of merging as a means to end their rivalry. An example of this merger is the outcomes of the 2010 Anglo-French Defence and Security Cooperation Treaty. Under the treaty both Paris and London will share their aircraft carriers, pool their military resources, have joint military forces, have closer arms industry cooperation, have joint defence equipment projects, have joint military facilities, have integrated nuclear weapons programs, jointly develop nuclear submarines, assess cooperation on developing military satellites, and jointly developing unmanned aerial drones. [13]

In the European Security Strategy emphases is placed on the central importance of NATO as the embodiment of America and the E.U. and the objective of establishing a “rule-based international order” through international regional bodies such as the E.U., the U.N. Security Council, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), MERCOSUR, and the African Union. [14]

What is written about the Mediterranean is as follows: “The Mediterranean area generally continues to undergo serious problems of economic stagnation, social unrest and unresolved conflicts. The European Union's interests require a continued engagement with Mediterranean partners, through more effective economic, security and cultural cooperation in the framework of the Barcelona Process. A broader engagement with the Arab World should also be considered.” [15] What is meant is that a project in the Mediterranean should be engaged as a broader engagement of the entire Arab World in economic and socio-political terms, as referenced by the Barcelona Process.

In no uncertain terms the E.U. security document goes on to declare the global ambitions of the European Union: “As a union of 25 states with over 450 million producing over a quarter of the world's [gross national product] (GNP), and with a wide range of instruments at its disposal, the European Union is inevitably a global player. In the last decade European forces have been deployed abroad to places as distant as Afghanistan, East Timor, and the [Democratic Republic of the Congo].” [16]

The security document replicates Anglo-American dogma, but in a very vague way. Even pre-emptively tackling threats abroad, in what has come to be known by political scientists as the Bush Doctrine, is also mentioned. [17] “Good governance” for the countries to the “East” of the European Union, which means the Balkans and the post-Soviet space, and the countries in the Mediterranean is also mentioned in line with what is ultimately an expansionist supranational economic project. [18] The document ultimately calls for “[h]igher defence spending upgrading the military and aligning the E.U. and NATO” in what will one day amount to integration. [19] 

The Mediterranean Union is merely a linking piece. This project is clearly engaged in brinkmanship towards global integration and the streamlining of supranational political, economic, and military organizations.  It is part of a compact between the elites of America and the major European powers.
An Embryonic Order is starting to emerge in the Mediterranean

The E.U. is moving beyond the Barcelona Process of 1995. The signs are appearing everywhere. The Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly (EMPA) was established after the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq on December 3, 2003. The Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly is an institution that has been sanctioned through the Barcelona Process. It is no coincidence that this body was brought about in 2003 because the Mediterranean Union is linked to the forced globalization that is being waged through the “Global War on Terror.”

The E.U. Commissioner for Information Society and Media has also given strong suggestions and foreshadowed what the E.U. intends to do in regards to the Mediterranean Union. Viviane Reding told Christian F. Trippe, the head of Deutsche Welle's Brussels studio, during an interview that the E.U. should look beyond the Mediterranean and further eastward (e.g., the former U.S.S.R. and the non-Mediterranean areas of the Middle East like Iraq and the Persian Gulf) for expansion: “But we shouldn't just look at the Mediterranean. We also need to look to the east. We have many new neighbors [sic.; neighbours]. And that's why it's so important to have the right policies to engage with them.” [20]

On November 22, 2007 the Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean (PAM) established its official headquarters in Spinola Palace, which is located in the Maltese city of St. Julian’s. Malta is an island-state and an E.U. member located in the centre of the Mediterranean Sea. [21] The roots of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean extend to an inter-parliamentary conference held in 1983 by Cyprus, but it was in 2005 and through security discussions held in Amman, Jordon that the green light was given for the establishment of the Mediterranean body.

On January 22, 2008 Reuters, quoting E.U. External Relations Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner, reported that the E.U. “wants to push ties with Morocco to a higher level within a year, rewarding Rabat for progress in opening markets and pressing economic and social reforms,” and has elaborated that Morocco will take part in a shared border security, policing, and legal system with the E.U., amongst other things. [22] The Kingdom of Morocco had made a bid to join the E.U. in 1986, but was rejected.

It should come as no surprise that two inter-linked conferences on free-trade between the Arab World, the U.S., and the E.U. were made and held consecutively. The first of the meetings was in Amman, Jordon (February 10-11, 2008) and discussed establishing the U.S. Middle East Free Trade Area (MEFTA) by 2013. The second was an Arab League-European Union foreign ministers conference held in Malta (February 11-12, 2008) that discuss “political engagement” between the E.U. and the Arab League along the lines of the European Union Mediterranean Free Trade Area (EMFTA).

The U.S. MEFTA venture started in 2003, the same year as the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq. Oman, Jordan, Bahrain, Israel, and Morocco already had bilateral free-trade agreements with the United States. All the U.S. MEFTA members are also member states of the Greater Arab Free Trade Area (GAFTA), which is the project of establishing an Arab common market. Such a project to establish a common market and customs union is not new amongst the Arabs. This Arab free-trade agreement, however, was adopted in the Arab League Summit of Amman in 1998, with 17 Arab League members signing the pact, it is supervised and run by the Arab Economic Council in the Arab League, but officially came into existence as of January 1, 2005. [23]

GAFTA objectives that are notable are as follows;

(1) The formation of a bigger and more homogenous market.

(2) Allowing foreign direct investment to work with a homogenous market with standardized regulations.

(3) Increase economic inter-dependence between the Arab states.

According to the Gulf Daily News of Bahrain, the U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs, Kent Patton, while visiting the U.A.E., Kuwait, and Bahrain for free-trade talks has said that the MEFTA will be put in place in the Middle East and North Africa by 2014; “There is a 2014 deadline for this but we hope it could be achieved sooner. There are no official discussions on but the process is very much in place.” [24] The MEFTA process is a step-by-step project, similar to the step-by-step formation of the European Union.

In 2010, interestingly enough, the Arab League meet in the Libyan city of Sirte and discussed establishing a Arab Neighbourhood. [25] The proposed Arab Neighbourhood could also include the non-Arab states of Turkey, Ethiopia, Chad, and Iran. This took place while Iran, Turkey, and Syria were talking about and taking steps to establish a common market and bloc in the Middle East that would also include Iraq, Lebanon, and Jordon.

Annapolis and the Economic Integration of Israel with the Arab World
Both the American-Arab and European Union-Arab League conferences, respectively in Jordon and in Malta, discussed economical integration, trade in the Mediterranean, and the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Both conferences were also coordinated with one another and planned during the end of 2007 in close proximity to the Annapolis Conference. The reason that Annapolis is linked to the timing of these two conferences is because the Annapolis Conference promoted the Saudi-proposed Arab Peace Initiative of 2002 and the Agreement of Principles between Mahmoud Abbas and Ehud Olmert, which both call for the economic integration of Israel with the Arab World. These proposals by Riyadh, Ehud Olmert, and Mahmoud Abbas are part of the blue prints for establishing the fertile grounds for the emergence of the Mediterranean Union.

Understanding the link between all these events and objectives and realizing their age will allow one to also understand why The Washington Post published a front-page article on February 9, 2003 that declared that both Israeli and American policy had become perfectly aligned in the Middle East: “For the first time a U.S. administration and a Likud [Israeli] government are pursuing nearly identical policies.” [26] The wars against Iraq and Taliban-controlled Afghanistan were about globalization under the helm of military might.

Wars of Integration: from the Balkans to Iraq

In order to move forward with the Mediterranean Union and the restructuring of the Middle East the people of the region must all be subdued so that the “New Middle East” can be brought about. Furthermore, this is why NATO/E.U. troops and ships are in Lebanon and the Eastern Mediterranean. This project is part of the emerging “New World Order” that George H. W. Bush Sr. was talking about when Baathist Iraq was defeated in 1991 and it is this new order that is beginning to lift up its head into the limelight for the whole earth to see. This endeavour is also the underlying reason for the “Global War on Terror” and why America and the E.U. were partners from the start of the so-called “long war.”

According to Lieutenant-General James J. Lovelace, the force known as U.S. Army Central (USARCENT/ARCENT) was establishing a permanent platform for “full spectrum operations” in the twenty-seven countries that form the boundaries of what use to be U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) in the Middle East, Central Asia, East Africa, and Pakistan.[27] This was before all the African states, except for Egypt, that fell into the borders of CENTCOM were transferred to the watch of U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM, USAFICOM).

Lieutenant-General Lovelace’s acknowledgement about the operational expansion of the capabilities of the U.S. Army in the Middle East, Central Asia, East Africa, and Pakistan only confirms what many experts and analysts predicted from the onslaught of the “Global War on Terror” in 2001: the U.S. intended to stay permanently in the Middle East and Central Asia under the cloak of fighting terrorism. Lieutenant-General Lovelace also confirmed that the process was part of a worldwide transformation of the U.S. military with the ability to conduct offensive, defensive, and stability operations.

Lieutenant-General Lovelace has moreover confirmed that the U.S. military has set its mind on staying permanently in the Middle East and its surrounding regions: “These commands now have a permanent responsibility to this theater. They’ll have a permanent presence here. The personnel will change; the commands will remain.” [28] This process became apparent when Lieutenant-General Paul T. Mikolsdhrk relocated from ARCENT headquarters from Fort McPherson, Georgia to Kuwait in the Persian Gulf in November 11, 2001.

The Stabilization and Association Process (SAP): Supranational Expansionism

The SAP is part of the modus operandi of the E.U. and U.S. for moving into conflict zones. Along with similar agreements and devices, the SAP is a form of neo-colonialism and imperial expansion. Countries are either smashed or eroded and then swallowed through incorporation into a much larger entity.

The words conflict, post-conflict, and stabilization all go together. Where war brings instability, the economic and political tutelage of the U.S. and E.U. has been presented as bringing stability. Both are systematic steps of the same formula. Stability operations is a vague word used to beautify occupation, economic restructuring of nation-states under occupational administrations similar to the ones in Iraq and Bosnia-Herzegovina, and nation-building.

The Stabilization and Association Process (SAP) has been part of the expansion formula of the European Union. It has been applied in the war-torn republics of the former Yugoslavia. It has proceeded by encouraging SAP candidates to quickly open up their economies, integrate themselves, and eventually to enter the E.U. as members. The process establishes a contractual relationship between the E.U. and the SAP candidate nations, which imposes legal obligations on the SAP candidate to open up its economy and to privatize its state infrastructure. State loans and economic arrangements are also made by the E.U. for the SAP candidate state, which further put it under the economic control of the main E.U. powers. Currently Croatia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) are SAP candidates.

A Grand Hoax: From the Mediterranean Union to the “Union of the Mediterranean”

A public relations campaign trying to hide the long-standing objectives of creating the Mediterranean Union as an additional layer to the European Union, which itself is a piece of a much larger emerging polity, has been underway. Public deception has been at play. The Mediterranean Union is costumed neo-colonialism, economic imperialism, and servitude. The supranational project is being orchestrated under the cover of a patient decades-long public relations campaign.

Germany has been pretending to oppose the supposedly solitary French idea of creating a Mediterranean Union. Chancellor Angela Merkel even claimed that the project risked splitting the E.U. with Paris establishing a sphere of influence in North Africa and the Middle East and Berlin a sphere of influence in Eastern Europe. A false compromise has been drawn between Paris and Berlin where the whole project has become a project that will involve Germany and the rest of the European Union.

The Mediterranean Unions name has been changed to the “Union of the Mediterranean” (UfM) as part of an effort to give the impression that a genuine compromise has been made over supposed concerns and oppositions towards it; when in fact the compromise is false and there were no disagreements between Paris and Berlin. In an omission about the true nature of the Mediterranean Union as a project of the entire E.U., President Nicolas Sarkozy told reporters that “I never had the idea of excluding any [E.U.] states [from the Union of the Mediterranean]...I never regarded it as a rival to the [European Union].” [29] According to Ingrid Melander the Mediterranean Union “concept has shrunk from an international forum grouping only states with a Mediterranean coastline and involving nine new agencies and a bank, to a mere regular summit of [E.U.] and [non-E.U.] Mediterranean countries with a joint presidency — which may yet be dropped — and a small secretariat.” [30]

After the so-called German objections, it was also widely reported that Nicolas Sarkozy has given the assurance of the French government to Chancellor Merkel and Germany that the Mediterranean Union will be a project for the entire European Union. Yet, on the opposite shores of the Mediterranean Sea there were voices refuting this. Colonel Qaddafi, the leader of Libya, expressed his opposition to the so-called diluted version of the Mediterranean Union that Paris and Berlin agreed upon and demanded a full union. The Jamahiriya News Agency of Libya quoted Colonel Qaddafi as saying: “The idea of true cooperation between the countries located around one sea on the lines of President Sarkozy’s initiative deserves support...” [31] Later Colonel Qaddafi would publicly make a reversal, voicing his opposition to the Mediterranean Union. Qaddafi would boycott a summit co-chaired by Egypt and France (the co-presidents nations of the Union of the Mediterranean) in July, 2008. [32]

Before its official acceptance in 2008, the proposal for a Union of the Mediterranean was presented as a joint Franco-German initiative to the rest of the E.U. bloc. [33] The Franco-German proposals, like many other political documents, are deliberately vague. The French government distributed a paper to other E.U. countries earlier in January of the same year outlining joint initiatives in agriculture, energy, the environment, migration, transport and ten other areas. Yet, none of this was mentioned in the less than two-page Franco-German paper. Paris and Berlin will chair the E.U. involvement in the Mediterranean Union. [34] The Mediterranean Union will also be managed by two directors or co-presidents, one from a non-E.U. Mediterranean nation and the other from a E.U. member state.

In 2008, during an E.U. summit, held from March 13 to March 14, 2008, the project was approved unanimous by the entire E.U. and was handed over to the European Commission for implementation with no public consolations with E.U. citizens. The project from its beginnings in 1995 as part of the Barcelona Process was part of a united E.U. endeavour to control the Mediterranean. Paris has pretended that it originally wanted the project to only include the nations of the Mediterranean littoral as members, while Berlin argued that the E.U. would be divided amongst its northern and southern members because of the project.

From the outset the project was funded by the entire European Union as a part of the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership. The whole project is based on the foundations of establishing a free-tree zone between the E.U. and the nations of the Mediterranean and the Arab World. There are clear indications that Berlin and the E.U. are being untruthful about the whole process including claims that Germany opposed French economic ties with Libya. [35]

The E.U. has stage-managed the whole project by creating false opposition or  a counter-discourse within the E.U. to the Mediterranean Union. Additionally, there is a deliberate attempt to downplay the whole process and its ramifications. The European Commission has claimed that the process of trade between the E.U. and the Mediterranean has merely generated substandard results because of  the inefficient governments of the nations of both the Eastern Mediterranean and the Southern Mediterranean. Brussels and E.U. officials have also downplayed the Mediterranean Union as a reinvigorated Euro-Mediterranean Partnership. The mainstream media and journalists in the E.U. have merely repeated these claims verbatim. Little is said, however, about the European Union’s geo-strategic aims of securing the vast natural resources and energy reserves of North Africa and the Middle East.

The Role of Corporations in the Union of the Mediterranean
An additional dimension to this deceit is the role of multinational corporations. In a stage-managed event, Berlin was presented to the public as prevailing in demands not to allow further E.U. funds to be allocated to the Barcelona Process and the Mediterranean Union. This has actually opened the door for the corporate private sector, which is one of the main forces behind the whole project. As part of the false compromise France will request for approximately 14 billion euros from multinational corporations. [36]

In fact on May 27, 2010 financial institutions and private investors were invited to the Marseille Provence Chamber of Commerce and Industry to discuss financing and investment in the Southern Mediterranean and Eastern Mediterranean countries, specifically in the energy, water, transport, and urban development sectors. [37] The Secretary-General of Union of the Mediterranean, Ahmed Masadeh, was present. Also present at the meeting was the E.U. Commissioner for Enlargement and European Neighbourhood Policy, Štefan Füle, and the Vice-President of the European Investment Bank, Philippe de Fontaine Vive. [38]

Since to 2002, the European Investment Bank has also been involved in this as part of the ENP through what are called Facility for Euro-Mediterranean Investment and Partnership (FEMIP) programs. These FEMIP programs are extended to Algeria, the Palestinian Territories, Israel, Jordon, Lebanon, Syria, Morocco, and Tunisia and encourage “the opening-up of the economies of Mediterranean partner countries.” [3] In the words of the European Investment bank, this is done through focusing “on two priority areas: support for the private sector and creating an investment-friendly environment.” [40] 

The globe will be divided into poor and rich. People are not only being alienated and estranged from the products of their labour, but they are on the path of ultimately being alienated and estranged to the system of governance that controls their lives through unaccountable supranational organizations. The global economic crisis has resulted in an induced anomic state in Europe and other regions, which provides the perfect order for re-organizing the social and economic order. In this aspect the Mediterranean Union is one phase within a global roadmap towards re-institutionalizing feudalism under a global elitist compact. Yet, all global elites will not be equal in this compact. From the Eurasian Heartland a challenge is rising from the elites of the triple entente of Moscow, Tehran, and Beijing, who have watched uneasily as the U.S. and E.U. inch closer in different ways towards their domains.

PART IV - The Mediterranean Union: The Geo-Strategic Challenge from Russia and Iran
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

NOTES   [1] Viviane Reding, “February 10, 2008 Interview about the Treaty of Lisbon and the E.U.”, interview by Christian F. Trippe, Journal, February 10, 2008. [2] European  Commission, Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities. “Do you want to work in another EU Member State?” (Belgium: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2006), pp.5, 7-9, 11-14, 15-25, 33. [3] Ibid., pp.9, 27-29; The European Union-Eight (E.U.-8) are the nations, aside from Malta and Cyprus, that joined the E.U. on May 1, 2004: Eastonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, and Slovenia; The European Union-Eight Plus Two (E.U.-8 +2) is a grouping of the E.U.-8 with the addition of Bulgaria and Romania, which both joined on January 1, 2007. [4] Ian Traynor, “Government wants personal details of every traveller”, The Guardian (U.K.), February 23, 2008. [5] Ibid. [6] Ibid. [7] “Germany, US deepen anti-terror cooperation”, Agence France-Presse (AFP), March 11, 2008. [8] European Commission, “The Policy: What is the European Neighbourhood Policy?” Accessed March 12, 2007: <http://ec.europa.eu/world/enp/policy_en.htm>. [9] Ibid. [10] Fulya Özerkan, “Mediterranean project vs. EU: An illusion or reality for Turkey?” Turkish Daily News, May 30, 2007. [11] Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and the Geostrategic Imperatives (N.Y.C., New York HarperCollins Publishers, 1997), p.204. [12] Council of the European Union, A Secure Europe in a Better World: The European Security Strategy, (Brussels: Consilium, December 12, 2003), p.1. [13] Prime Minister’s Office (10 Downing Street), UK–France Summit 2010 Declaration on Defence and Security Co-operation, November 2, 2010: <http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/statements-and-articles/2010/11/uk%E2%80%93france-summit-2010-declaration-on-defence-and-security-co-operation-56519>. [14] European Union, A Secure Europe, Op. Cit.,p.9. [15] Ibid.,p.8. [16] Ibid., p.1. [17] Ibid.,p.7. [18] Ibid.,pp.7-8. [19] Ibid., p.12. [20] “February 10, 2008 Interview”, Op. cit. [21] Fiona Galea Debono, “Malta determined in its Med. vocation - President”, Times of Malta, November 23, 2007. [22] Tom Pfeiffer, ed. Ralph Boulton, “EU wants Morocco ties within a year”, Reuters, January 22, 2008. [23] European Institute for Research on Mediterranean and Euro-Arab Coopration (MEDEA), “Arab Free Trade Area (AFTA)”, Accessed January 22, 2008: <http://www.medea.be/index.html?page=2&lang=en&doc=286>. [24] “Trade Deal”, Gulf Daily News, vol. 30, no. 344, February 27, 2008 p.1; Mandeep Singh, “New push for Mideast free trade deal”, Gulf Daily News, vol. 30, no. 344, February 27, 2008, p.32. [25] “Arab League silent on Middle East peace process”, Agence France-Presse (AFP), October 9, 2010. [26] Robert G. Kaiser, “Bush and Sharon Nearly Identical On Mideast Policy”, The Washington Post, February 9, 2003, p.A01. [27] Vince Little, “Permanent U.S. Army command taking shape in Kuwait”, Stars and Stripes, February 19, 2008. [28] Ibid. [29] Ingrid Melander et al., “EU leaders to endorse Mediterranean Union: draft”, ed. Philippa Fletcher, Reuters, March 14, 2008. [30] Ibid. [31] “Gaddafi says Med Union risks running into sand”, Reuters, March 15, 2008. [32] “Mediterranean Union is launched”, British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), July 13, 2008. [33] Stephen Castle, “Sarkozy and Merkel draft agreement detailing role of nations on EU’s southern border”, International Herald Tribune, March 12, 2008. [34] “Germany and France present proposal for chairing Mediterranean Union”, IRNA, March 12, 2008 [35] Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, “The Mediterranean Union: Dividing the Middle East and North Africa”, Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), February 19, 2008. [36] Melander, “EU leaders Op. cit. [37] European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI) Info Centre, “UfM projects in the spotlight at Marseille investors’ forum”, May 14, 2010: . [38] Ibid. [39] European Investment Bank, “Facility for Euro-Mediterranean Investment and Partnership (FEMIP)”, Accessed September 13, 2010: . [40] Ibid.   Related Global Research articles   The Mediterranean Union: Dividing the Middle East and North Africa  NATO and Israel: Instruments of America's Wars in the Middle East  America's "Divide and Rule" Strategies in the Middle East  The "Great Game" Eurasia and the History of War  The "Great Game" Enters the Mediterranean: Gas, Oil, War, and Geo-Politics  The Sino-Russian Alliance: Challenging America's Ambitions in Eurasia  Europe and America: Sharing the Spoils of War

Global Research Articles by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya