by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

from GlobalResearch Website






Part I

Dividing the Middle East and North Africa

February 10, 2008

The Middle East and North Africa are in the process of being divided into spheres of influence between the European Union and the United States. Essentially the division of the Middle East and North Africa are between Franco-German and Anglo-American interests. There is a unified stance within NATO in regards to this re-division.

While on the surface Iraq falls within the Anglo-American orbit, the Eastern Mediterranean and its gas resources have been set to fall into the Franco-German orbit. In fact the Mediterranean region as a whole, from Morocco and gas-rich Algeria to the Levant is coveted by Franco-German interests, but there is more to this complex picture than meets the eye.

Unknown to the global public, several milestone decisions have been made to end Franco-German and Anglo-American squabbling that will ultimately call for joint management of the spoils of war. Franco-German and Anglo-American interests are converging into one. The reality of the situation is that the area ranging from Mauritania to the Persian Gulf and Afghanistan will be shared by America, Britain, France, Germany, and their allies.

These spheres of influence are really spheres of responsibility in a long campaign to restructure the Middle East and North Africa. The services agreement between Total S.A. and Chevron to jointly develop Iraqi energy reserves, NATO agreements in the Persian Gulf, and the establishment of a permanent French military base in the U.A.E. are all results of these objectives. Militant globalization and force is at work from Iraq and Lebanon to the Maghreb.


Redrawing European Security Borders

The Road to Redrawing the Map of the Middle East

“The politics [foreign policy] of a state are in its geography.”
-Napoleon Bonaparte I

Emperor of the French, King of Italy, Protector of the Confederation of the Rhine, and Mediator of the Helvetic (Swiss) Confederation

Before NATO’s Riga Summit it was agreed upon that the western periphery of the “Arc of Instability” would be manned by NATO and fall under Franco-German responsibility. [1]


Signs of the consensus reached between the Anglo-American and Franco-German sides had emerged through Franco-German representatives a month prior to NATO’s conference in Riga, Latvia.


While lecturing at Princeton University in October 2006, Joschka Fischer the former German Foreign Affairs Minister, a member of the Green Party of Germany, and a representative of the Franco-German entente gave a profound revelation about the direction of the foreign, security, and defence policy that Germany and France were heading towards.

The direction according to Joschka Fischer was “eastward,” with both the Middle East and its Eastern Mediterranean waters being named as the new borders of Europe. This region would be part of the new security sphere of the E.U. and Europe. The former German minister stated that the terrorist bombings in London, Britain and Madrid, Spain showed that the Middle East “is truly our [Europe’s] backyard, and we in the E.U. must cease our shortsightedness and recognize that.” [2]

Furthermore, Joschka Fischer warned that Europe needed to shift its attention to the Middle East and Turkey - a member of NATO and one of the “gateways” or “entrances” into the Middle East. It is not coincidental that The New York Times also argued for the expansion of NATO into the Middle East just months after the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq in 2003. [3]


By 2004 and through the joint Anglo-American and Franco-German coordination in Lebanon it was clear that France and Germany had agreed to be America’s bridgeheads in Eurasia. This is what brought about the leadership of Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy in Berlin and Paris.

The statements of Joschka Fischer reflected a broader attitude within the leading circles of France and Germany. They are not coincidental remarks or innovative in nature or isolated statements. They are part of long-standing objectives and policies that have existed for decades.


Fischer’s lecture foreshadowed the drive towards the harmonization of foreign policy in the Middle East between France, Germany, Britain, and the United States. What Joschka Fischer said marked the rapprochement of the Franco-German entente and the Anglo-American alliance and foreshadowed the greater role the E.U. and NATO would play in U.S. foreign policy.

The Daily Princetonian, Princeton’s school/university newspaper, quoted the former German official as making the following statements: [4]

  1. “Europe’s security is no longer defined on its [Europe’s] eastern borders, but in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East”

  2. “Turkey should be a security pillar for the European community, and the efforts to derail that relationship are impossibly shortsighted”

Joschka Fischer’s statements also foreshadow Nicolas Sarkozy’s public campaign in the Mediterranean region.


Franco-German policy is also exposed in regards to Turkey; before Nicolas Sarkozy was elected in France, Chancellor Angela Merkel intensified her calls for the inclusion of Turkey within the framework of the E.U. through a “special relationship,” but not as part of the actual European bloc. [5]


This also foreshadowed what Nicolas Sarkozy would later propose to the Turks.

This could mean one of two things: Franco-German policy is part of a continuum regardless of leadership and party politics or that the outcome of the 2007 French presidential elections were known in Berlin or decided beforehand. Whatever the case, the German statements expose a calculated agenda in Paris, Berlin, and other European circles for expansion linked to the Anglo-American march to war.

Paris and Berlin act in tandem regardless as to whosoever is leading their respective governments. It is Franco-German policy at its core depends on powerful economic interests. The latter call the shots and override the elected politicians.


These economic interests determine in both France and Germany, as well as at the level of the E.U., the nature of government policy.


The Mediterranean Union

Expanding the E.U. into the Middle East and North Africa

The whole Mediterranean is slated to eventually fall within the European Union’s sphere of influence. This initiative is being spearheaded by France and was officially kicked off by Nicolas Sarkozy on a tour of the Mediterranean that started in Algeria. [6]

The idea of a “Mediterranean Union” was presented to Europeans with the election of Nicolas Sarkozy, but this idea is not as new as the mainstream media presents it.


Zbigniew Brzezinski acknowledged in 1997 that,

“France not only seeks a central political role in a unified Europe but also sees itself as the nucleus of a Mediterranean-North African cluster of states that share common concerns.” [7]

An extension of the E.U. sphere of influence will also result in an extension of Anglo-American influence and the economic diktats of the Washington Consensus. In this case the question is how much Anglo-American influence will there be within the Mediterranean Union?

The E.U. is a shared body which support both Anglo-American and Franco-German interests. It is through America’s “special relationship” with Britain and NATO that America has a foothold in the European Union. However, the E.U. is still predominately managed by Paris and Berlin. Thus, the Mediterranean littoral will be brought largely under Franco-German influence when the E.U. model is fused onto the Mediterranean.

The mechanism and structure established by the extension of the E.U. in the Mediterranean will determine the level of Anglo-American influence within the Mediterranean littoral. If the E.U. creates an overlapping mechanism in the Mediterranean where the nations of the Mediterranean littoral are linked only directly with E.U. members bordering the Mediterranean and indirectly with other E.U. members, then Anglo-American influence will be much weaker than it would be in the case of full integration between the E.U. and Mediterranean.


This type of relationship would greatly empower Paris and Berlin within the Mediterranean.

Hypothetically, this arrangement could exclude Britain, as well as America. The Mediterranean could strictly fall into the Franco-German orbit, but this seems to be an unlikely scenario. Anglo-American control and influence will be maximized if the Mediterranean is wholly amalgamated into the European Union.


However, this could damage the E.U. and hurt Anglo-American and Franco-German interests for different reasons, including demographics, if it is not done at a proper pace. If amalgamation is not achieved gradually, the E.U. could face internal instability. In reality, it is in the interests of the Anglo-American and Franco-German sides to share the Mediterranean.

This is another case where cooperation with the Franco-German entente, is in the interest of both and Britain and America. To insure a strong Anglo-American role, NATO has been involved, and Israel has been integrated into the framework for a Mediterranean Union.

Israel’s role in this process also hinges upon its bilateral relationship with Turkey.

The role of Turkey as a Mediterranean country is considered pivotal in the creation of a “union in the Mediterranean region,” as one of its backbones. What has been created is an extensive network of relationships and links that will make the whole structure of a Mediterranean Union easy and quick to formalize.


The far-reaching economic and military ties between Turkey and Israel will ensure that Israel is well integrated into the proposed Mediterranean entity.

Dual membership for Turkey within the E.U. and the Mediterranean Union, but without full E.U. benefits, would also benefit Anglo-American interests. This may explain why Britain and America publicly support the direct entry of Turkey into the European Union.


The roles of Turkey and Israel in the Mediterranean are also topics that must be touched upon to themselves.





Establishing a Mediterranean Free Trade Zone

...and Sharing the Spoils of Libya’s Oil Wealth

Both the Franco-German and Anglo-American sides are sharing the spoils in Libya, one of the targets of threats of war through the “Global War on Terror.”


After the fall of Baghdad in 2003, Libya surrendered peacefully to demands from the “Western Powers.” The Washington Consensus made its breakthrough into Libya.

Tripoli was on a blacklist of nations, which included Somalia, Sudan, Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, and Iran. It was also in 2003 that construction of the Greenstream Pipeline was made to supply the E.U. with Libyan natural gas via a route running through the Mediterranean Sea to the Italian island of Sicily.

It seems just like yesterday when Libya was categorized as a “rogue state” and vilified as a supporter of international terrorism. Its status changed almost overnight with the opening up of its markets. A country’s economic policy is what determines its status in the eyes of Washington and London.

There have been no political or ideological changes in Libya nor has there been any change in leadership, but Libya is no longer seen as a rogue state. The only thing that has changes is that Libya has flung its doors open to U.S. and E.U. economic interests.

The economic, energy, and weapons deals signed with Libya in 2007 reveal the ultimate economic intent of the “Global War on Terror.” Moreover, Libya has committed itself to a program of “national reform.” [8]


The media has picked up on this, but fails to talk about the real shape of reform in Libya.

The reforms are being presented as merely “democratic reform.” In practice, Libya has also accepted to undertake a “free market” program of economic restructuring in accordance with the demands of the U.S., Britain, France, and Germany. Additionally, Colonel Qaddafi the ruler and Libya’s authority can not be challenged, which exposes the true cosmetic face of these so-called democratic reforms.

Moreover, the Barcelona Declaration of 1995 that calls for a Euro-Mediterranean Partnership stands in the backdrop of the neo-liberal economic reforms, which will open up the Libyan economy to foreign investors.

The Barcelona Declaration was intended to establish a European dominated free trade zone in North Africa, the Middle East, and the Mediterranean region by 2010. Everything is on track, in regards to the objectives of the Barcelona Declaration. The U.S. Middle East Free Trade Area (MEFTA) is also a parallel to this.


The E.U.’s Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA), an aggressive free trade agreement being imposed under economic threats on former European colonies, also has similar templates in regards to the ACP States in Africa, the Caribbean, and the Pacific.


Justifying ties to Libya

The Bulgarian Nurses and a Shameless E.U. Public Relations Campaign

It is no accident that a group of Bulgarian nurses were freed by Libya in connection with the visit of President Sarkozy while he was on a Mediterranean tour to talk about the establishment of the Mediterranean Union. [9]


The whole event was an E.U. public relations stunt. Nicolas Sarkozy arrived in Libya on July 25, 2007 to sign five major deals with Libya just one day after his former wife, Cécilia Ciganer-Albéniz, shuttled out of Tripoli on board a French presidential jet with the five Bulgarian nurses and the Palestinian doctor that France and the E.U. had negotiated for.

The Bulgarian nurse ordeal has been used as a justification for improving economic ties with Libya, a nation otherwise demonized as an international rogue, despite the E.U. claims of commercial relationships being tied to human rights. The whole affair was stage managed and was an attempt to hide the underlying economic interests that dictate foreign policy in the E.U. and America.


At the time, it was also reported that Libya blackmailed the E.U. for economic benefits in regards to the freedom of the Bulgarian nurses. However, in reality it is the E.U. that benefiting from the economic arrangements with Libya and not the other way around.

The mainstream press in the E.U. attempted to make it look like President Sarkozy was acting on his own in regards to Libya and started calling him a maverick, but nothing could be further from the truth.


The French government claimed that their business deals with Libya were part of an effort to bring Libya into the light of “respectability” and that human right issues were also discussed between the French President and Colonel Qaddafi. However, Colonel Qaddafi stated at UNESCO Headquarters, in Paris, that human rights were never even talked about between the French President and himself. [10]


This was during a highly reported five-day state visit made by Colonel Qaddafi to France where the Libyan leader was welcomed by President Sarkozy on December 10, 2007. [11]

The freedom of the Bulgarian nurses also came after major Anglo-American arms and energy deals were announced with Libya. [12]


Both Anglo-American and Franco-German economic interests were being served in Libya. In May of 2007, in a state of irony, the British prime minister at the time, Tony Blair, announced a major Anglo-American arms and energy deal while visiting Libya and Colonel Qaddafi. [13]


The French, with the knowledge and support of their German partners, also announced an arms deal between the European Aeronautics and Defence Space Company (EADS) and Libya. [14]


France also announced a major nuclear deal with Libya. France, like Britain and the U.S., has coddled Libya in pursuit of economic interests and this should dispel for once and for all the mirage that the U.S. and the E.U. are defenders of democracy and human rights.

In a related event Colonel Qaddafi has also told African leaders that if plans for an African Union were delayed that Libya would divert billions of dollars worth of investments from the African continent to the Mediterranean region and become its most influential player. [15]


Pertaining to the Mediterranean Union Qaddafi also stated that the fates of Libya and North Africa are tied to Europe. [16]





Exposing Paris and Berlin at their game

Germany’s role in the Mediterranean Union

It has been reported in the mainstream media that the weapons and nuclear agreements between France and Libya have upset Berlin, but German officials have denied this as untrue. [17]


Chancellor Angela Merkel has also claimed that France’s idea of a Mediterranean Union threatens the E.U. and its institutions. German leaders are playing a game of on-and-off-again opposition to Paris in regards to Libya and the Mediterranean Union. Berlin makes critical statements of French actions, but then denies them to create a shroud of confusion.

Media reports and Berlin’s statements are utterly false and intended to deliberately mislead the public. Germany had to approve the French deals with Libya, because EADS is a Franco-German company that has both private and governmental interests and representation from both Paris and Berlin. The contracts with Libya could never have been formalized without the okay of the German government.

Germany is fully involved in the creation of the Mediterranean Union, as are America and Britain. The hypocrisy of the whole act that is being played out in Paris, Berlin, and E.U. capital cities is part of a tactic to mislead the public opinion.


In Britain, The Financial Times called attention to the fact that Angela Merkel really wants Germany and the E.U. to be fully involved in the creation of the Mediterranean Union:

“Angela Merkel, Germany’s chancellor, pointedly told France’s ruling UMP [Union pour un Mouvement Populaire/Union for a Popular Movement] party yesterday that the future stability of the Mediterranean region affected the whole European Union and that all 27 [E.U.] member states should be involved in the engagement process.” [18]

The context of the German Chancellor’s speech was for the creation of something going beyond the Barcelona Process of 1995, which she called too “bureaucratic,” that would fully include all E.U. members.


Frau Merkel emphasized that the Mediterranean was vital for Germany and northern E.U. members and not just France and Mediterranean E.U. members like Spain and Italy:

“‘Germany wants to assume its responsibilities in the Mediterranean and we want to offer to all [E.U.] member countries the possibility to participate,’ she said. ‘We should have a reinforced co-operation [between the E.U. and Mediterranean]. I am convinced that all European countries are interested in this.’” [19]

In her speech, Frau Merkel stated that she was convinced that all E.U. members would be interested in having roles in the creation of the Mediterranean Union, but this is an untruthful statement - Frau Merkel knows that the entire E.U. was slated from the start to be a part of the process.


The issue is not about interest, but about a calculated long-term arrangement.

Nicolas Sarkozy has moved forward with the staged act of presenting a compromise by saying that Germany and any other non-Mediterranean E.U. members (e.g. Britain) that want to participate in the creation of the Mediterranean Union are welcome. This is all a complete act. This is part of the commencement of publicly making the Mediterranean Union into what it already was, which is an E.U. initiative.

It should also be noted that German representatives were also in West Africa in connection to the French initiatives in the Mediterranean region. [20]


The Germans are also preparing for the road ahead when the Mediterranean Union would economically link Africa to Europe and set the stage for further expansionism.


E.U. Declarations of support for the Mediterranean Union

The Spanish Prime Minister, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, has also announced Spain’s support for the creation of a Mediterranean Union and for new migration laws during a meeting with Nicolas Sarkozy. [21]


Although it is not being tied to the creation of the Mediterranean Union, the rationale for a drive to establish new migration laws is precisely because of the Mediterranean Union and the influx of migrants that could arrive into the E.U. from the poorer countries of the Mediterranean.


Italy has also signaled its support for the Mediterranean Union and new migration laws in the E.U. during the same meetings between Prime Minister Zapatero and President Sarkozy, which involved Prime Minister Prodi. [22]

All the Mediterranean members of the E.U., also called the “Olive Group,” have also declared their support for the creation of a Mediterranean Union at a two-day conference (January 17-18, 2008) held in Paphos, Cyprus. [23]


The Cypriot Foreign Minister, Eros Kazakou-Marcoullis told the international press that the Mediterranean members of the E.U. fully back the creation of a Mediterranean Union:

“We reaffirmed our support to all efforts which have as an objective the strengthening of the cooperation between European and Mediterranean countries and reiterated the importance of the Mediterranean region for the security, stability and prosperity of the European Union.” [24]

The Annapolis Conference and the Arab-Israeli Conflict were also discussed in Paphos because of their deep relevance to the integration of the Arab World and Israel with the European Union. A forced agreement on the Arabs would pave the way for the political and economical restructuring of the Arab World.


Without mentioning it directly, the Mediterranean Union has also been inferred to as a solution to the issue of unifying Greek and Turkish Cypriots by Gerhard Schröder (Schroeder), the former federal chancellor of Germany. [25]



[1] Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Europe and America: Sharing the Spoils of War, Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), July 26, 2007.
[2] Fischer warns of a “blind” Europe on Mideast, Deutsche Presse-Agentur/German Press Agency (DPA), October 25, 2006.
[3] Thomas L. Friedman, Expanding Club NATO, The New York Times, October 26, 2003.
[4] Fisher warns, Op. cit.
[5] Merkel calls for progress in Turkey’s EU membership talks, Xinhua News Agency, April 16, 2007.
[6] Jill Carroll, In Algeria, Sarkozy condemns colonialism, pushes Mediterranean Union, Christian Science Monitor, December 5, 2007.
[7] Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives (NYC, New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1997), p.42.
[8] Gaddafi son unveils reform plan, British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), August 21, 2007.
[9] Lionel Laurent, Gadhafi’s Diplomatic Dice With Europe, Forbes Magazine, July 27, 2007.
[10] Elaine Sciolino, French Officials Hounded by Criticism Over Qaddafi Visit, The New York Times, December 14, 2007.
[11] Elaine Sciolino, Libyan leader makes grand entrance in Paris, International Herald Tribune, December 10, 2007.
[12] Daniel Dombey and James Boxel, Britain closer to arms deal with Libya, Financial Times, May 30, 2007.
[13] Britain and Libya unveil energy and arms deals, Reuters, May 30, 2007.
[14] France and Libya sign arms deal, British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), August 3, 2007.
[15] Kadhafi threatens to turn back on Africa, Agence France-Presse (AFP), January 29, 2008; Libya’s Gaddafi says may pull Africa investments, Reuters, January 31, 2008.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Germany denies rift with France over Libyan nuclear deal, IRNA, July 30, 2007.
[18] Bertrand Benoit and John Thornhill, Merkel Refuffs Sarkozy on Mediterranean Union plan, The Financial Times (U.K.), January 31, 2008.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Germany refuses to criticise France over Libya arms deal, Agence France-Presse (AFP), August 3, 2007.
[21] France, Spain close ranks on ETA, Mediterranean Union, migration, Agence France-Presse (AFP), January 10, 2008.
[22] Sarkozy: Italy, Spain seek to join forces with France on expelling illegal immigrants, Associated Press, January 8, 2008.
[23] Jiang Yuxia, FMs of Mediterranean EU states to meet in Cyprus on co-op, Xinhua News Agency, January 15, 2008; Cypus: EU Mediterranean foreign minister to hold talks on Kosovo, Middle East, Associated Press, January 17, 2008; the Mediterranean members of the E.U., such as Greece, Italy, Spain, and Cyprus are called the Olive Group because of the olive tree that is found in all the lands of the Mediterranean and is analogous to the Mediterranean region from the Iberian Peninsula to the Aegean coast and the Levant.
[24] Mediterranean EU members back creation of Mediterranean Union, Xinhua News Agency, January 18, 2008; also refer to Joschka Fischer’s 2006 statements at Princeton and compare the similarities.
[25] Schroeder visit signals Germans more attentive to plight of Turkish Cypriots, The New Anatolian, February 3, 2008; Schröder is quoted as saying “We will do our best to improve [the] peace and cooperation milieu between peoples of Cyprus, Turkey and Greece as well as to make [the] Aegean and [the] Mediterranean a peace and cooperation zone within [the] integration process with Europe [meaning the E.U.].”


[1] European Union map with modifications; Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).








Part II
NATO’s Role in Conquering the Middle East and North Africa
February 18, 2008


Towards the Conquest of the Middle East and North Africa: The U.S., the E.U. and Israel join hands.

In the first portion of this text, the longstanding 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 this project was planned through the 1995 Barcelona Process and the U.S. Middle East Free Trade Area (MEFTA).

Franco-German plans for extending the borders of the European Union in synchronization with the “Global War on Terror” were also discussed. The case of Libya was also discussed to expose the hypocrisy behind the economic agendas of the E.U. and U.S. that hide behind humanitarian causes and human rights. 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.


NATO Expansion in the Mediterranean

Paving the Way for E.U. Enlargement

France and Germany are partners in the Anglo-American wars and the Project for the “New Middle East.”


This is not a recent development, this is the resumption of the strategic understanding that existed between the Franco-German and Anglo-American sides before the Bush Jr. Administration seemed to have diverged from Anglo-American geo-strategy.


The global military deployments of Germany, France, Spain, and Italy coincide with statements of expanding the European Union’s security borders, which can in turn be equated to expanding the European Union’s sphere of influence.

In 2004 and 2007 E.U. expansion followed the NATO expansion of the 1990s eastward in the European continent. This pattern sets a methodological precedent that should be acknowledged with some value. This same NATO-E.U. template of expansion is also being applied in the Middle East and North Africa.


This modus operandi of military-political expansion is also noted by Bzezinski:

“In July [1997] Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary were officially invited to join NATO. Invitations to the Baltic [Republics; Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia], Romania, and Bulgaria soon followed. This expansion made Europe’s own expansion logical and unavoidable.


With the former European Community having redefined itself as the European Union, Europeans themselves decided that it made no sense to exclude their newly democratic [neighbors] - already tied through NATO to both the United States and the European Union - from actual [European Union] membership.” [1]

However Brzezinski’s casual rationalization of NATO and E.U. expansion and his bumbling effort to casually link them as if it all was an unplanned accident that presented a sensible response is false.


If this was true then why has, hereto in 2008, Turkey been denied E.U. membership since the creation of the European Union? The answer is that NATO and E.U. expansion were pre-planned objectives in Eastern Europe.

The Franco-German and Anglo-American agenda in the Mediterranean explains several other international developments and realities. Firstly, the objective of forming a bloc in the Mediterranean explain the earlier expansion of NATO in the area through what NATO terms the “Mediterranean Dialogue.”


This so-called Mediterranean Dialogue is part of NATO’s “Mediterranean Initiative.”


The framework of this relationship creates a de facto extension of NATO, which includes Israel as an informal member. Morocco, Algeria, Mauritania, Tunisia, Egypt, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, and Israel are all members of NATO’s Mediterranean Initiative. The only Arab nations in the Mediterranean littoral that are excluded are Libya, Syria, and Lebanon.


Through this mechanism the Mediterranean Sea has virtually become a NATO lake, almost surrounded entirely by NATO members or de facto NATO members. Albania and the coastline of the former Yugoslavia off the shore of the Adriatic Sea are also controlled by NATO.

Secondly, the German naval and French land commands over NATO troops on Lebanese soil and off the Lebanese shore are explained by the categorizing of the Mediterranean as an area under Franco-German management.


It should also be noted that it was in 2001 that the E.U., particularly the French, started talking about sending troops under the banner of NATO into the Eastern Mediterranean, in particular Palestine.





Israel to join the E.U. and NATO

The exclusion of Syria and Lebanon from NATO’s Mediterranean network can be used to explain the next point.


Syria is the last Arab state in the Middle East that is independent in its policy making. Both Syria and Lebanon are slated to fall under the authority of Franco-German interests and the political sphere of the European Union. This is what the Israeli war against Lebanon in 2006 sought to partially accomplish.

The post-mortem facts of the 2006 Israeli aerial siege against Lebanon show that Syria was also an intended Israeli target. However, Israel was unable to attack Syria and hesitated because of its failures in Lebanon and Iranian threats to intervene militarily if Israel attacked Syria.

Strategic planners within the U.S., Israel, the E.U., and NATO have also formulated several contingency plans to partition Syria and Lebanon under several alternative arrangements and maps. This is part of the broader objective to control the coastline of the Eastern Mediterranean as well as both the Middle East and North Africa.

As NATO solidifies, its military presence in the western outer periphery of the “Arc of Instability,” the governments of France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and other E.U. members have also started close security dialogues with Tel Aviv over Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, and Iran. [2]


Israel not only has a relationship within a multilateral framework with NATO, it also has strong bilateral ties with Brussels that were deepened in 2004.

It is not by chance that Israel is a partner in Operation Active Endeavour, the force that has spawned the NATO naval armada off the coasts of Syria and Lebanon. [3]


Nor is it coincidental that Israel announced it would fully participated in NATO naval exercises in May of 2006, right before attacking Lebanon. [4] This was under the pretext of a so-called “Iranian threat.”

Starting in August, 2007 Israeli ships have joined NATO warships in the Eastern Mediterranean, Red Sea, and Black Sea in full naval cooperation. [5] This has been marked by joint Israeli-NATO exercises that have taken place in the Red Sea and the Black Sea.

It should be noted that minesweepers have participated in the inaugural Israeli-NATO naval exercises. This alludes to possible action against Iran in the Persian Gulf. Many establishment figures in Germany, including those from the German Green Party, have also called for the inclusion of Israel into NATO as a full member. [6]

According to Avigdor Lieberman, an important figure in Israeli politics,

“Israel’s diplomatic and security goal... must be clear: joining NATO and entering the European Union.”

This is considered as the strategic path that Israel must take. [7]

Israel is expected to eventually join the European Union.


The E.U.’s enlargement is tied into the process of NATO expansion. Israel and the E.U. will both manage, from an economic and political standpoint, the western outer periphery of the “Arc of Instability” under the framework of a Mediterranean Union.


Western Energy Security, NATO, Israel, and the Bigger Picture

The Mediterranean Union is tied to “energy security.” It is a process towards the economic domination of the Mediterranean by the European Union.

The balkanization of Lebanon and Syria serve the interests of Western energy corporations, amongst a host of other interests. The envisioned redrawn borders for the Middle East that are tied to the Mediterranean Union and the Project for the “New Middle East” are designed to secure energy corridors, “pacify” the region’s population, and ultimately set the stage for the economic colonization of the new weaker states.

Israeli security concerns through the Yinon Plan would be integrated into the equation, but only because of the regional security role Tel Aviv serves for the U.S. and the European Union.

This process of dividing and economically absorbing is similar to the pattern imposed in the former Yugoslavia by the Franco-German entente and the Anglo-American alliance through the E.U. and NATO.

Aside from neutralizing Iran and its allies in the Middle East, the main themes of the Herzliya Conference of 2008 in Israel were Israeli-NATO and Israeli-E.U. relations and integration. The latent role of Tel Aviv acting as a guarantor of energy security for the European Union and NATO was also an object of important discussions.

The February 2008 issue of Commentary Magazine, the official periodical of the American Jewish Committee, has also proposed in an article by Norman Podhoretz that Israel could launch a devastating pre-emptive nuclear attack against Iran (below video) and Israel’s Arab neighbors (including the countries of Arab regimes allied to Israel and NATO like Egypt) and militarily occupy the oil fields, refineries, and naval ports of the Persian Gulf countries to establish energy security. [8]





The pieces of the grand strategy unfolding over the strategic map are becoming clearer. Podhoretz asserts that Israel could liquidate large populations in the Middle East (“tens of millions”) and that Israel could virtually annex energy-rich areas in the Persian Gulf.


The substance of these diabolical statements emanate from an American think-tank, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), which is closely linked to the formulation of the U.S. foreign policy and military agenda in the Middle East.

These statements and notions from Norman Podhoretz and the Center for Strategic and International Studies act as a window of insight into the thoughts of the Anglo-American establishment and its European and Israeli partners.


There is also a link between the concept that Israel could militarily occupy the oil fields of the Persian Gulf and the 2008 Herzliya Conference’s discussions about Israel acting as an agent of E.U. and NATO energy security.

The 2006 Riga Summit illustrates the full scope of the strategic objectives of NATO in securing energy resources in the Middle East, North Africa, and the former Soviet Union.


In 2006, during NATO’s Riga Summit in Latvia, which included Israel, energy security was also a major theme; energy security was discussed to the point where it was pushed forward as an Article 5 (Mutual Defense Clause) issue. [9]


If the case of Iraq were not enough, it is clear that a real and dangerous intent exists within the U.S., the E.U., and Israel to take control of the energy resources of other nations through force.


The Divided Political-Military Relations

...that exist in Europe are Replicated in the Mediterranean

NATO’s Mediterranean Dialogue, which began in 1994, and the 1995 Barcelona Declaration are the mechanisms for creating a Mediterranean Union.

The Barcelona Declaration pertains to the economic aspects of this proposed regional body and NATO’s Mediterranean Dialogue represents the underlying military framework. It was in 2007 under Nicolas Sarkozy that the political framework was unveiled. It is obvious that this has been a calculated endeavor that has been thought through in advance many years earlier without the knowledge of the general public.

While NATO has already started the military integration of Israel, followed by the nations of North Africa and Jordon, a relationship with the E.U. serves to integrate these nations gradually through political association. It should also be noted that military ties are easier to implement between autocratic and supposedly democratic countries than political harmonization.


E.U. and American principles on human rights are often used to challenge countries that do not conform to the economic tenets of the New World Order. The hidden face of globalization is exposed through the military-political brinkmanship, which invariably support an economic objective.

In the Mediterranean, there exists a divided, but inter-linked, military and political relationship. What is taking place is the replication of the same military-political relationship that allowed America through NATO to exert its influence in Europe.

Just like in the E.U., NATO’s framework in the Mediterranean region ensures that France and Germany do not monopolize the Mediterranean Union. [10]

Israel and Israeli influence will be projected into the Mediterranean to exert additional leverage on behalf of America and Britain. The inclusion of Israel is to guarantee Anglo-American influence. The joint Anglo-American and Franco-German roles and interests in the Mediterranean also explains the Anglo-American and Franco-German deals with Libya, which is an illustration of their shared economic interests.


On top of all this, the placement of an American military base in Vicenza, Italy is tied to securing Anglo-American interests within the projected framework of a Mediterranean Union.





NATO and the Persian Gulf

Rivalry with the Eurasian Heartland?

The divided European military-political relationship, which is being replicated in the Mediterranean, can also be observed in the Persian Gulf where NATO and NATO members have military and security agreements with Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states.


Moreover, the GCC is creating a common market with a similar structure to the proposed bloc in the Mediterranean. The GCC common market is also slated for gradual amalgamate with the E.U. and the Mediterranean Union.

The E.U. has had a formal relationship with the GCC since 1988 and NATO initiated ties starting with the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative in 2004.

However, the process that has been underway in the Mediterranean is being fast-forwarded in the Persian Gulf. This could be because of a possible threat from the rising strength of the players in the Eurasian Heartland. Iran, Russia, and China are now engaging the GCC in economic as well military affairs.

During a conference in Bahrain, Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Saltanov called for the creation of a new collective security arrangment in the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, which would include Iran and could include Russia. [11]


According to Chinese reports, Saudi Arabia and China have also had discussions on establishing military ties. [12]

The members of the GCC, which are all members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) aside from Oman, are clearly being tempted to switch camps. Both Washington, D.C. and Brussels are concerned by the overtures made to the GCC and the Arab World by Iran, Russia, and China.


The U.S. National Director of Intelligence, Michael McConnell has even warned the U.S. Congress in an annual assessment that Russia, China, and all of the members of OPEC, which includes Iran and Venezuela, all represent growing financial threats to American supremacy. [13]

Plans for establishing a petro-rubble system for energy payments have also been the subject of numerous exchanges between Russia, Iran, Kazakhstan, China, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). This project, if realized, would challenge the financial centers of the U.S. and the European Union.

NATO, E.U., and U.S. military forces are deployed over a vast area: from West Africa, Central and East Africa to the Balkans, the Middle East, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and a large portion of the Indian Ocean.

Brute force is being used as the muscle behind neo-liberal economic policies. NATO is playing a major role in enforcing the establishment of the Mediterranean Union and the creation of the “New Middle East.”

These objectives are part of the reality behind NATO’s document Towards a Grand Strategy for an Uncertain World. The NATO document also puts a concept into the limelight that is being discussed by E.U. and U.S. officials: the amalgamation of the military assets of the U.S., the E.U., and NATO into one streamlined military body. [14]


It is clear that the primary function of the military has been to aid economic objectives and the case is no different in regards to NATO’s role in the conquest of the Middle East, North Africa, and beyond.



[1] Zbigniew Brzezinski, Second Chance: Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower (NYC, New York: Basic Books, 2007), pp.106-107.
[2] Yossi Verter and Assaf Uni, Lebanon, Iran top Olmert’s agenda on visit to Germany, Italy, Haaretz, December 11, 2006.
[3] Yakkov Katz, Israel moves closer to NATO mission, The Jerusalem Post, June 25, 2007.
[4] Israel tightens NATO ties amid Iran nuke jitters, Reuters, May 29, 2006.
[5] Yakkov Katz, Israel, NATO conduct Red Sea naval exercise, The Jerusalem Post, August 16, 2007.
[6] Ralf Fücks, Israel in die NATO! Der Spiegel, July 20, 2006.
[7] Tim Butcher, Minister calls on Israel to join Nato, The Telegraph (U.K.), January 30, 2007.
[8] Norman Podhoretz, Stopping Iran: Why the Case for Military Action Still Stands, Commentary Magazine, vol. 125, no. 2, (February, 2008): pp.11-19; the exact page of citation is p.18.
[9] Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya,The Globalization of Military Power: NATO Expansion, Centre for Research on Globalization, May 17, 2007.
[10] Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Europe and America: Sharing the Spoils of War, Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), July 26, 2007.
[11] Russia wants creation of organization for Persian Gulf, Interfax, January 29, 2008.
[12] Jiang Yuxia, Chinese DM meets Saudi crown prince on improving military ties, Xinhua News Agency, January 23, 2007.
[13] Randall Mikkelsen, U.S. sees Russia, China and OPEC financial threat, Reuters, February 5, 2008.
[14] Towards a Grand Strategy for an Uncertain World is a NATO document authored by five former NATO generals that calls for the use of nuclear weapons against rival states and blocs, for the global expansion of NATO, and for the amalgamation of the U.S., the E.U., and NATO.


[1] NATO HQ.
[2] Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).




The Emergence of a New Order and the Battle for the Mediterranean

November 5, 2010



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 skepticism about the Mediterranean Union on Deutsche Welle Television (DW-TV).


Commissioner Reding was told by her interviewer that skeptics 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

  • 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

  • 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 traveling 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 travelers 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 traveler 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 traveling 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 modeled 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 leveling 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 Neighborhood 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 Neighborhood Policy (ENP) was developed in 2004, with the objective of avoiding the emergence of new dividing lines between the enlarged [European Union] and our neighbors 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 neighbors 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 Neighborhood 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 Neighborhood 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 Neighborhood Investment Fund. The purpose of the Neighborhood 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

  • 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 defense equipment projects

  • have joint military facilities

  • have integrated nuclear weapons programs

  • jointly develop nuclear submarines

  • assess cooperation on developing military satellites

  • 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 defense 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. 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 Neighborhood. [25] The proposed Arab Neighborhood 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 endeavor 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. endeavor 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 requested 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 the Union of the Mediterranean, Ahmed Masadeh, was present.


Also present at the meeting was the E.U. Commissioner for Enlargement and European Neighborhood Policy, Štefan Füle, and the Vice-President of the European Investment Bank, Philippe de Fontaine Vive. [38]

Since 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.


[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: <>.
[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:
[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: <>.
[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.


Return to Globalization and The European Union

Return to Global Militarism