Nazemroaya: The Mediterranean Union: Dividing the Middle East & North Africa


Richard Moore

The Mediterranean Union: Dividing the Middle East and North Africa

By Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

Global Research, 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

³The politics [foreign policy] of a state are in its geography.²

-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 NATO¹s Riga Summit it was agreed upon that the western periphery of the 
³Arc of Instability² 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 NATO¹s 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 

The direction according to Joschka Fischer was ³eastward,² 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 ³is truly our 
[Europe¹s] backyard, and we in the E.U. must cease our shortsightedness and 
recognize that.² [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 ³gateways² or 
³entrances² 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 America¹s 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. Fischer¹s 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, Princeton¹s school/university newspaper, quoted the 
former German official as making the following statements: [4]

.1. ³Europe¹s security is no longer defined on its [Europe¹s] eastern borders, 
but in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East.²

.2. ³Turkey should be a security pillar for the European community, and the 
efforts to derail that relationship are impossibly shortsighted.²

Joschka Fischer¹s statements also foreshadow Nicolas Sarkozy¹s 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 ³special relationship,² but not as part of the actual European 
bloc. [5] This also foreshadowed what Nicolas Sarkozy would later propose to the

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 govemments. 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 

The whole Mediterranean is slated to eventually fall within the European Union¹s
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 ³Mediterranean Union² 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 ³France 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.² 
[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 America¹s ³special relationship² 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.

Israel¹s role in this process also hinges upon its bilateral relationship with 

The role of Turkey as a Mediterranean country is considered pivotal in the 
creation of a ³union in the Mediterranean region,² 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 Libya¹s 
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 ³Global War on Terror.² After 
the fall of Baghdad in 2003, Libya surrendered peacefully to demands from the 
³Western Powers.² 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 ³rogue state² and 
vilified as a supporter of international terrorism. Its status changed almost 
overnight with the opening up of its markets. A country¹s 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 ³Global War on Terror.² Moreover, Libya has 
committed itself to a program of ³national reform.² [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 ³democratic reform.² In practice, 
Libya has also accepted to undertake a ³free market² program of economic 
restructuring in accordance with the demands of the U.S., Britain, France, and 
Germany. Additionally, Colonel Qaddafi the ruler and Libya¹s 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.¹s 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 ³respectability² 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.

Exposing Paris and Berlin at their game: Germany¹s role in the Mediterranean 

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 
France¹s 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 Berlin¹s 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: ³Angela Merkel, Germany¹s chancellor, 
pointedly told France¹s 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.² [18]

The context of the German Chancellor¹s speech was for the creation of something 
going beyond the Barcelona Process of 1995, which she called too ³bureaucratic,²
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: ³ŒGermany wants to 
assume its responsibilities in the Mediterranean and we want to offer to all 
[E.U.] member countries the possibility to participate,¹ she said. ŒWe should 
have a reinforced co-operation [between the E.U. and Mediterranean]. I am 
convinced that all European countries are interested in this.¹² [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 that 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 
Spain¹s 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 signalled 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. 

All the Mediterranean members of the E.U., also called the ³Olive Group,² 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: ³We 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.² [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]

PART II - The Mediterranean Union: NATO¹s Role in Conquering the Middle East and
North Africa

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya specializes in Middle Eastern affairs. He is a Research 
Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).


[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 ³blind² 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, 

[4] Fisher warns, Op. cit.

[5] Merkel calls for progress in Turkey¹s 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, Gadhafi¹s 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; Libya¹s 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, 

[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 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 Fischer¹s 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 ³We 
will do our best to improve 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 integration process with 
Europe [meaning the E.U.].²


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

Related articles from the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG):

 NATO and Israel: Instruments of America's Wars in the Middle East

 America's "Divide and Rule" Strategies in the Middle East

 The "Great Game:" Eurasia and the History of War

 The "Great Game" Enters the Mediterranean: Gas, Oil, War, and Geo-Politics

 The Sino-Russian Alliance: Challenging America's Ambitions in Eurasia

 Europe and America: Sharing the Spoils of War

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of 
the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on 

To become a Member of Global Research

The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on 
community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The 
source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global 
Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, 
contact: •••@••.••• contains copyrighted material the use of which has not 
always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such 
material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an 
effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social 
issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who 
have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational 
purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair 
use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries: •••@••.•••

© Copyright Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Global Research, 2008

The url address of this article is:

© Copyright 2005-2007
Web site engine by Polygraphx Multimedia © Copyright 2005-2007

newslog archives:

Escaping the Matrix:

The Phoenix Project:

rkm blog: "How We the People can change the world":

The Post-Bush Regime: A Prognosis

Community Democracy Framework:

Moderator: •••@••.•••  (comments welcome)