"It's been floated around as a general idea without anybody giving very careful thought to what it really means."
Deux-Rivisme rides again. By Nicole Itano for the Christian Science Monitor:
Athens - The deep blue waters of the Mediterranean Sea connect three continents and 21 countries with a combined population of more than 400 million. But can this vast and diverse region – with Christians, Muslims, and Jews; Africans, Europeans, and Arabs – operate as a coherent political entity?
No.
That's the idea that French President Nicolas Sarkozy has been touting in his first three months in office. Launching his presidency with big ideas, he's proposed the creation of a "Mediterranean Union" to address common regional issues such as immigration, terrorism, environmental degradation, and economic development. Despite its hazy outlines, the plan appears to be gathering momentum on opposite sides of the sea.
But many observers familiar with the nuts and bolts of Euro-Mediterranean relations are skeptical that such a grouping could function on the grand scale Sarkozy seems to be suggesting.
Yes.
"It's been floated around as a general idea without anybody giving very careful thought to what it really means," says Richard Youngs, director of the democratization program at FRIDE, a Madrid-based think thank. "If this does reflect a genuine desire on the part of the new French government to reengage itself in Mediterranean issues, that's welcome. But it requires some careful thought."
[...]
For European countries like France and Spain – which are increasingly feeling the effects of North African poverty and political insecurity – the idea of a new regional grouping for the Mediterranean is attractive precisely because it may offer a forum for tackling the diverse region's many problems. Egypt, Tunisia, and Spain have attached at least tentative support to the idea in recent months, despite the absence of any concrete suggestions from France as to how exactly such an entity would work.
Indeed, for many political analysts in the region, Sarkozy's nascent idea creates more questions than answers: Would it be a supranational organization like the EU with the power to set national laws or merely an institutionalized forum for discussion? And how would it interact with the existing regional organizations – such as the EU, African Union, and Union of the Arab Maghreb – to which its potential members already belong?
"The risk," says Dr. Youngs, "is of simply adding another initiative that merely confuses the picture even more."
The idea of a Mediterranean Union has been around for at least a decade. But the energetic French president has breathed new life into the concept as he's jetted around the region meeting with area leaders in what many analysts see as an attempt to boost France's role as a leader in international relations.
Sarkozy discussed it during meetings with his counterparts in Tunisia and Algeria in a July tour of the Maghreb, talked it up during a working dinner in Slovenia with foreign ministers of EU Mediterranean states, and advertised it during a joint press conference earlier this month with Egypt's Hosni Mubarak.
[...]
Dorothée Schmid, a researcher on Mediterranean issues at the French Institute for International Relations, says French diplomats are working to formulate a more concrete proposal that is likely to be made public sometime in the fall. A Mediterranean project, she suggested, may be a centerpiece of France's presidency of the EU in the second half of 2008.
But she warned that the political climate in the region now may be less conducive to cooperation than in the past, due to increased security issues and heightened international tensions between the Arab world and the West.
Ultimately, too, she says, states must ask themselves whether the Mediterranean is itself a region, or a meeting point between them.
"Is the Mediterranean a region in economic terms, in cultural terms – in any way except for the geographical aspect?" asks Ms. Schmid. "The legitimacy of a Mediterranean frame is quite dubious, I think. Especially on political grounds."
I have no problem with their setting up an informal forum of some kind, but anything more official and binding than that will only hurt European states.
Greetings:
Sure sounds, to me, what the Europeans deserve if not need.
Maybe they can't get a competition going with the EU in the dhimmi-fication race.
More camel noses in more tents.
The bloom is of the Sarkozy rose.
One word - Israel. This discussion will not go further than that as the 'we are all one world except for Israel' Mediterranean nations stamp their feet and perform hissy fits; or it will proceed with the French appeasement to the savages by excluding Israel, and as such it will be a farce.
Well, as the EU is a farce, I guess the second position is more likely.
For European countries like France and Spain – which are increasingly feeling the effects of North African poverty and political insecurity – the idea...is attractive precisely because it may offer a forum for tackling the diverse region's many problems.
And why the hell should it be France and Spain's concern if North Africa is poor and politicaly insercure? Why do they have to help "tackle" their problems? Why are they "feeling the effects" of North Africa's problems? Is it becuase of massive uncontrolled immigration?
Like most politicians, Sarkozy is not listening to the voters who elected him. The French people have spoken loud and clear. They want more French independence and less EU control over their lives... NOT this bizarre scheme to expand the EU into the Middle East and Africa.
Not only should this proposed Mediterranean Union be halted in its tracks, but it's time whittle down the EU, if not abolish it outright.
I think someone kidnapped the candidate Nicolas Sarkozy and replaced him with a dhimmi body double.
Aside from the piece to which Marisol gives a link above -- that about the Deux-Rivistes -- there was this cautionary note back in June, before the election:
June 12, 2007
Fitzgerald: Sarkozy: Curb your enthusiasm
Some previous curb-your-enthusiasm posts (lightly edited for clarity) about Sarkozy, who nonetheless is much better than any of the others, save Philippe de Villiers, whose time may well come:
1.
Here's a fine how-de-doo. Sarkozy, on whom so many hopes were placed, comes down on the side of equality of outcome, and does not dare touch the subject that needs to be touched: what is it about Islam that explains subpar economic performance, even in the Muslim lands that have no excuse, for they have received nearly $10 trillion dollars over the past 34 years and have failed everywhere to create the semblance of a modern economy. Nor does he dare touch on what explains the dismal performance of Muslim immigrants, compared to other non-Muslim immigrants -- Hindus, Vietnamese Buddhists and Christians, Chinese -- all over Europe. What is it about Islam that stands a permanent obstacle to integration with Infidels? Could it be, might it be, the very attitudes of hostility and even murderous hatred that one can find set out in Qur'anic passages, in Hadith stories, in details of the life of Muhammad set out in the Sira? No, none of that for Sarkozy.
And what a surprise to see the deplorable Dominique de Villepin stand up for -- well, essentially, for the grandes ecoles, and the meritocracy of examinations, and Long live the khagne! Long live the agregation! For if that goes, then the entire cult of intelligence and merit goes with it. And even though there are plenty of reasons to deplore the recent examples of graduates of ENA and suchlike, the destruction of the examination system, and the obstacle course set up in its place, would be the last nail in the coffin of Jules Ferry and la carriere ouverte aux talents, as well as of the cartable for the little ones, and the cahier, and the cahier de vacances, and the bac, and everything that is left to which even D. de V. sees has its points.
But he, too, does not dare explain what it is about Islam that stunts mental growth, or that prevents genuine integration of Muslims in a society where they do not receive what they regard as their due -- that due being, in the end, the modification over time of that Infidel society to accommodate Muslim demands at every level, until, as has happened everywhere that Muslims become a majority or a too-powerful minority, Islam comes to dominate and Muslims rule. It does not always take place through outright military conquest. See the East Indies, where traders from the Hadramaut settled in Java, and one thing led to another, with the results that can be observed.
[Posted by: Hugh at November 26, 2005 07:26 PM]
2.
Le Pen is disreputable in a hundred collaborationist, poujadist ways. Philippe De Villiers is fine, far more perceptive than Sarkozy, in whom so many (possibly misplaced) hopes have been placed. Some lepenistes apparently believe that Philippe De Villiers is doing Chirac's work for him, but this is never quite explained, since Chirac will soon be out of office, trying to stay out of jail.
It is Le Pen who has been inconsistent. He stood stoutly by Saddam Hussein, and appears to find the Muslim Arabs perfectly acceptable in the conduct of their Lesser Jihad against Israel, possibly a reflection of his most unsavory aspect. The best thing that could happen now for the emergence of a sensible anti-Islam movement in France would be the disappearance of Le Pen, and those of his supporters who supported him slightly or very unwillingly, malgre eux, can turn their attention, and support, to Philippe De Villiers, to give him power that he can trade on.
[Posted by: Hugh at October 28, 2006 1:08 AM]
3.
Sarkozy is good, but Philippe de Villiers is better. One hopes that Sarkozy will not engage in any idiotic "reaching out" to the "youths" in the "banlieues," but instead will make sure that they know that a different view of things now prevails, and the nonsense of the past will no longer be tolerated. Sarkozy was very good on television with the sinister Tariq Ramadan (for whom the jig is up in France, and in Switzerland, which is why he moved on to a temporary post in England, and hopes to take his show on the road to credulous America, where willfully naive Scott Appleby and Notre Dame still await him -- or so he devoutly believes).
Sarkozy has spoken in the past about the possibility of "integrating" the Muslims of France, and has even suggested the desirability of special programs to favor them in employment and with a kind of affirmative action in the schools. He still doesn't realize that teaching Believers French, teaching them about French culture, will not make them any better able to accept Infidel institutions, or make them necessarily loyal to the Infidel nation-state of France, but will assuredly provide many with the tools to better conduct Da'wa, to better promote their own, Muslim, aims. Such courses will be akin to those KGB schools for spies, where the spies were taught the languages and cultures of the West -- but still remained loyal to the Soviet system. Putin, for example, knows German perfectly. He knew exactly how to fit in to East Germany (and there were other KGB agents like him in what was then West Germany). But those KGB agents were not "integrated" into the West, though they were living in that West, and had been taught all about it.
Sarkozy must be very careful. And not hesitate to turn that ship of state completely around so that it rises higher in the water. The motto of the city of Paris, quondam Lutetia -- fluctuat nec mergitur (it bobs up and down on the waves, but doesn't sink, as if Paris were a bar of Ivory soap) just will not do, not for Paris, and not for France.
"Not sinking" isn't enough of a goal. Nor will the faith in making France "prosperous" again sufficient. The Muslim presence is, of course, an enormous economic weight, and drain on the welfare state. But more importantly, it is a great political, social, civilizational weight, a general demoralizer for those who see the problem, and those who perform the mental equivalent of salti mortali in order not to see it.
Sarkozy can help to disabuse the permanent French establishment about the Deux-Rives notion, that somehow France, or France as the leader of Europe, shares a civilization with the Arab Muslims of North Africa (google "Deux-rivistes" and "Jihad Watch"), and that the differences are merely those of that pesky Mediterranean in the middle. And assorted olivier-roys and gilles-kepels should lose their positions of unmerited and baleful influence, and if possible, their government employment at one of those many Centres de Recherches Scientifiques that provide sinecures for so many of the well-degreed and well-connected."
[Posted by: Hugh at May 7, 2007 10:28 AM]
Sarkozy exhibits some good features and some worrisome ones. He is a sentimentalist, who thinks that the case of Rachida Dati proves that Muslims can integrate and succeed; what it proves that in Rachid Dati's case, she alone of the 11 children in her family has integrated fully and succeeded in French society. 1 out of 11 is not enough; even 10 out of 11 is not really enough to justify French toleration of Muslim migration or a large-scale Muslim presence. In the case of Mad Cow disease, governments routinely keep out millions of cattle, or quarantine those within, if there is a one in a million chance. Infidels are being asked by their governments and ruling classes to accept a level of risk (about Muslims) that should not be asked of them.
He is an admirer of hustle, bustle, economic activity. "Dynamic" is probably a word he would not deplore. But before raising an eyebrow at this, consider that he comes from a country with a sclerotic economic system, with jobs for life, and a very large government payroll (the better to find "jobs for the boys" at various research institutes, or the School of Landscape Architecture in Versailles (see whom Mitterand appointed and why), and so on). Nonetheless, his deep belief in the need to "get with the program" offered by Chinese -- and to a much lesser extent American -- competition shows he is too quick to throw out the French douceur-de-vivre baby with the static-GNP-bathwater.
And there are other problems. Compared to what was, he is great. Compared to what France will need if it is to avoid that deux-rivisme nonsene, he so far has been weighed, and found wanting. Though you wouldn't know it from those original, not the retouched, photos of him boating on Winnipesaukee, with those love handles in evidence.
The Meditteranean has not really had a unified culture since the days of the Roman Empire--certainly not since the Muslim conquest.
This plan would represent an even greater disaster for Europe than the current situation. There are serious problems with North America's NAFTA, for instance, with two (largely) affluent and lawful societies dealing with irrational and impoverished Mexico, but this plan is a model of sanity compared with the "Two Riverbanks" idea.
Europe has everything to lose and absolutely nothing to gain by this. All of the meditteranean Muslim countries are absolute corrupt basket-cases.
From above:
For European countries like France and Spain – which are increasingly feeling the effects of North African poverty and political insecurity – the idea...is attractive precisely because it may offer a forum for tackling the diverse region's many problems.
.................
While this plan would be disasterous for all of Europe, I think it would be worst of all for those southern European nations such as the above mentioned France and Spain (and Italy and Greece, which suffered so long under Muslim hegemony). Like border states, they would bear the brunt of North African immigration and encroaching Islamification, and would probably have little legal recourse against it.
"A Mediterranean project, she suggested, may be a centerpiece of France's presidency of the EU in the second half of 2008."
When France was trying to control Morocco in 1912; they were dealing with an incompetent Moroccan leader named Moulai Hafid. Mr. Hafid was willing to leave, but he wanted lots of stuff. From The Conquest of Morocco by Douglas Porch:
Most of the negotiations, however, were taken up by tedious arguments over money and property, and here the bald acquisitiveness of Moulai Hafid reached megalomanic proportions. In general, he adopted the view that any property was his to dispose of as he wished as absolute monarch while any outstanding debts were the responsibility of the state. He defended this principle with great tenacity and ability, “and had a classical Arabic quotation at hand – often most skillfully misquoted – to prove his every argument.”
This is where our form of government fails. There is no way in which a Mediterranean Union would benefit European taxpayers. But, if you are an embedded government bureaucrat, a Mediterranean Union would entail more problems, more stuff to do, larger budgets, and greater job security as we enter an uncertain time. A Mediterranean Union would benefit decision-makers, in the short term.
But nobody thinks things through. In the age of computers and airplanes, governments end up competing with each other to attract industry and human capital. When an already high tax and regulatory burden is raised, the flows of factories to China and smart people to the Caribbean will accelerate.
Bad things happen when the money runs out for programs to which populations have become dependent.
Isn`t this just another step towards the Eurabia that Bat Yeòr has been describing?
Other than the importing of misery and poverty and infiltrating vandals, sounds like a great plan.
What the hell was so wrong with Europe in the 1960's and 70's that they had to invite in their own replacements and doom?
Was liberty and peace and prosperity too much for their post-colonial guilt to handle?
Is Europe full of people who cannot take Yes for an answer?
Then they will surely get the NO they are asking for.
Sharia: the fatal negation of freedom.
Well, the guy is fast, you have to give him that. Nobody has managed to lose credibility faster than Sarkozy. Move over, Condoleezza!
Sarkozy wants to create the Mediterranean Union,among other things,to offer membership there to Turkey.The Mediterranean Union will be a much looser organization than EU where immigration among member states will not be permitted.
In international politics you can not just refuse something.You have to offer an alternative.US foreign policy is not JihadWatch policy and pushes for full membership of Turkey in EU,something that Sarkozy does not want but he has to offer an alternative like the Mediterranean Union.
What's Sarkozy doing in Dhimmi Watch?
NOOOOOOOO....
Sarkozy should calm down a bit. He should meet with Bat Ye'or. He should meet with Ayaan HIrsi Ali and Ibn Warraq (and should discharge from their sinecures the ever-wrong Gilles Kepel and Olivier Roy, pour encourager les autres) and possibly put on his own refrigerator, under the magnet -- he did indicate he wanted to be more like the Americans, didn't he? -- the following words of Dorothée Schmid, a researcher on Mediterranean issues at the French Institute for International Relations:
"Is the Mediterranean a region in economic terms, in cultural terms – in any way except for the geographical aspect?" asks Ms. Schmid. "The legitimacy of a Mediterranean frame is quite dubious, I think. Especially on political grounds."
And it would also help if the word "Deux-Rivisme" should be forced into the French language.
In an ideal world, this is a great idea. The fact that all share the coast of the Mediterranean shows the need for efforts in areas of environmental cooperation. And the fact that Cruise ships go from country to country shows a need for cooperation in the field of tourism. And all of these countries have an interest in keeping their coasts safe from acts of piracy. A few of the North African countries such as Morocco and Tunis I'm sure would have no problems working with Israel on this. And I'm sure Sarkozy isn't so foolish and naive as to think that this will come about in the very near future.
Either Sarkosy is in deep denial over the danger to France and other European nations; or, he figures all is lost and is preparing a proper funeral for Europe. Either way the French lose.
{^_^}
Would it be a supranational organization be like the EU with the power to set national laws or merely an institutionalized forum for discussion?
On first reading, I thought Sarkozy was trying to claim the credit for something that's already happening. On further reading though, I think JW commenters are being unfair on him.
The work towards a "Mediterranean Union" has been underway for more than a decade in the form of the EU's Euro-Med Partnership.
http://ec.europa.eu/external_relations/euromed/
This arrangement has created 10 so-called Partner
States around the Meditteranean region: Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Palestinian Authority, Syria, Tunisia and Turkey. (Libya has observer status since 1999.)
The EU plans develop the Euro-Med Partnership firstly into a free trade area, and then gradually extend to its peoples the rights of EU citizens, including freedom of movement and freedom of residency.
What Sarkozy is proposing is an alternative to that. A Mediterranean Union that will encourage dialogue and co-operation, but without the move towards eventual political union. Given that the EU's Euro-Med is already underway, and that very few people in Europe know what it has in store for them - because it's on the EU website but not at all publicised - then Sarkozy's plan seems like an attempt to outflank it.
The EU sees itself as one big country with no internal borders, so if the Euro-Med ideas were implemented to the full, then preventing a person moving from, say, Algeria to Sweden would be no more possible than preventing a New Yorker from moving to Florida.
The prospect of a pan-Mediterranean talking-shop is infinitely preferable to the idea of millions of impoverished Turks, Mahgrebians and Middle Easterners being given the key to Europe's door - not to mention its welfare systems.
(Of course, what Sarkozy should have proposed is the complete scrapping of the EU, but he's not the man for that.)
Note to fellow Europeans. Take a look at the supposed "new" EU Treaty, esp Article 69. It obliges the EU to abolish "any controls on persons, whatever their nationality, when crossing internal borders".
In other words, once somebody has entered one of the 27 EU countries, it will become illegal to prevent them from entering any other EU country, regardless of their nationality. So if thousands of Turks, Russians, Somalis or Afghanis somehow manage to enter part of the EU, our so-called "national governments" will no longer have any right to stop them entering our countries and staying there.
It is, in essence, a charter to formally abolish the concept of illegal immigration.
I couldn't disagree more with all the EU bashers out there. No European state is, by itself, a great power any more. It's one thing to dispute particular EU policies and another to say there should be no supranational government in Europe. What the Europeans need is a strong state with a central army, navy and air force and a powerful pan-European patriotism based on Judeo-Christian, classical Greek and Roman heritage and the Enlightenment. Yes, keep the Muslims, both states and migrants, out, but don't tell the Europeans they're better off with dozens of jealously sovereign but mostly helpless states, like Germany before 1866. Anti-EU Americans merely want a divided Europe so the U.S. gov't can pick and choose satellites for ad hoc "coalitions of the willing" rather than dealing with a strong EU as an equal.
"For European countries like France and Spain – which are increasingly feeling the effects of North African poverty and political insecurity "
....oh, like they have Muslim youths in their cities or something?.......
I thought this guy was going to be alright. I am sure someone here told me he would be.
But he is just turning out to be another Dilbert. And I am being more than kind.
Unbelievable. Only weeks after the Bulgarian medical staff were ransomed from the modern day Barbary pirates (aka Libya), Sarkozy is inviting them into the house.
"Is the Mediterranean a region in economic terms, in cultural terms – in any way except for the geographical aspect?"
NO! NO! NO! 1000 TIMES NO!!!