World Geopolitics and The Battle for the Mediterranean
The Mediterranean Union: Emergence of a New Order

Global Research, November 5, 2010
by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
" target="_blank"">

PART III
The Mediterranean Union: The Emergence of a New Order and the Battle for the Mediterranean

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(2) The construction of a zone of shared prosperity through an economic and financial partnership and the gradual establishment of a free-trade area.

(3) The rapprochement between peoples through a social, cultural,
and human partnership aimed at encouraging understanding between
cultures and exchanged between civil societies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To a certain extent, Chinese leverage over the E.U. would also be dealt a strategic blow. The E.U., like the U.S., is also looking for a means to reduce its dependence on the Chinese before Beijing can be
challenged any further over global resources and raw materials. The
Mediterranean Union provides a partial answer to this quest against
China and other nations with substantially large populations, such as
India and Brazil. Once dependence on the Chinese is reduced then energy
supplies to China can be challenged with greater effort and possibly
cut.

Preparations for Amalgamation: Changing E.U. migratory laws in anticipation for the Mediterranean Union?

The underlying economic motives for the Mediterranean Union are the reasons why the E.U. is making a mad dash to change its migratory laws. The new regulations and laws will touch
immigrants, emigrants, migrant workers, tourists, and other visitors.
Fingerprinting, scanning, and collecting information on anyone crossing
into or outside of the borders of the E.U. will become standard
procedure. This process is also linked to the European Security
Strategy, which is an E.U. replication of the strategic doctrine of
post-September 11, 2001 America.

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

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

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

Frontex, a border intelligence agency with its headquarters in Warsaw, the Polish capital, has also been created by the E.U. to monitor all E.U. borders and frontiers. The Warsaw-based agency became
operational on October 3, 2005. Additional emphasis has been placed on
Ceuta and Melilla as frontier points, which include radar detection and
sensory systems and an entire network of cameras to monitor migrant
movements into the European Union. Ceuta and Melilla are tiny Spanish
territorial positions in North Africa which Spain gained in 1912 as
part of Spanish Morocco and has since refused to return to Morocco.

Fortress Europe and the Economic Motivations hiding behind a Global “Security Agenda”

The so-called reforms being brought about in the E.U. are conveniently
justified to combat three elements: terrorism, illegal migratory
movements, and crime. The dawning of the Mediterranean Union, in league
with the global terrorism scare, will however also bring about greater
control over E.U. citizens. Despite the creation of the Schengen Zone
the passengers that will travel between different E.U. states or
those travelling on domestic flights will also have to hand over a
large amount of personal information. In Britain this includes credit
card numbers and cellular phone numbers. [4] The information will be
stored for thirteen years and could be used to profile any individual,
including profiling their purchases through credit card records and
their private network of relationships through a log of telephone
contacts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The European Security Strategy: An Anglo-American and Franco-German Compact for Eurasia

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






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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An Embryonic Order is starting to emerge in the Mediterranean

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

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

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

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

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

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

GAFTA objectives that are notable are as follows;

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

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

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

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

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

Annapolis and the Economic Integration of Israel with the Arab World

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

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

Wars of Integration: from the Balkans to Iraq

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

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

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

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

The Stabilization and Association Process (SAP): Supranational Expansionism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Role of Corporations in the Union of the Mediterranean

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

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

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

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

PART IV – The Mediterranean Union: The Geo-Strategic Challenge from Russia and Iran

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)..