Saturday, 12 March 2011 11:41 'To understand why Western powers are pushing so hard to launch military operations against Libya, why now David Cameron is backing Sarkozy'd calls for Libya air strikes, and why the US now says "NATO is the 'natural choice' for Libya intervention, you have to look at the failed Mediterranean Union.' Read more: Justifying NATO Military Intervention To fullfill Mediterranean Union Agenda The Union for the Mediterranean (UfM) is a multilateral partnership that encompasses 43 countries from Europe and the Mediterranean Basin: the 27 member states of the European Union and 16 Mediterranean partner countries from North Africa, the Middle East and the Balkans. It was created in July 2008 as a relaunched Euro-Mediterranean Partnership (the Barcelona Process) in 2008, when a plan to create an autonomous Mediterranean Union was dropped. The Union has the aim of promoting stability and prosperity throughout the Mediterranean region. Nevertheless, its 2009 and 2010 Summits could not be held due to the stalemate of the Arab-Israeli peace process after the Gaza war. The European Union and NATO's response to the events in north Africa with the emergency summit of EU leaders in Brussels tomorrow, makes clear that the EU's rewriting of its north Africa policy, is to re-design the fullfill the frame work of the Mediterranean Union.
Justifying NATO Military Intervention
To fullfill Mediterranean Union AgendaPublished on 03-10-2011
Sunday, 13 March 2011
Doug Owen - Blacklisted News
To understand why Western powers are pushing so hard to launch military operations against Libya, why now David Cameron is backing Sarkozy'd calls for Libya air strikes, and why the US now says "NATO is the 'natural choice' for Libya intervention, you have to look at the failed Mediterranean Union.
Wikipedia gives a good general overview:
The Union for the Mediterranean introduced new institutions into the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership with the aim of increasing its visibility such as the creation of a Secretariat.
...
A proposal to establish a "Mediterranean Union" was part of the election campaign of Nicolas Sarkozy during the French presidential election campaign in 2007. During the campaign Mr. Sarkozy said that the Mediterranean Union would be modeled on the European Union with a shared judicial area and common institutions.[19] Sarkozy saw Turkish membership of the Mediterranean Union as an alternative to membership of the European Union, which he opposes,[19] and as a forum for dialog between Israel and its Arab Neighbors.[20]
Sarkozy's Mediterranean Union failed through diplomacy and other general setbacks, though institutions like the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership developed the framework for the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly and region.
FT's Gideon Rachman's "ineffectual international organizations" highlights the struggle of this New World Order and how these systems of global governance have been ineffectual in being able to align competing interests and push through policy changes in such a diverse forums. The CFR's Lee Hudson Teslik's "A Mediterranean Rendezvous" states; "The union's formation also raises a more basic question—what exactly is gained by founding a new bloc? The Economist, in a recent cover story, says global institutions have devolved into an "outdated muddle." Clubs—whether regional (ASEAN, EU, AU, SAARC), cultural/linguistic (Arab League, OIC), economic (IMF, World Bank), trade focused (Mercosur, OPEC, or, more broadly, the WTO), or military/security focused (NATO, SCO, OSCE), not to mention the bewildering array of "G" clubs (G7, G8,G11, G20, G33)—have proliferated in recent decades. Yet the result, the Economist says, has not necessarily been better governance. The FT's Gideon Rachman parodies "ineffectual international organizations" in a recent blog post, saying they often speak grandiosely on issues they have no power to influence. None of this minimizes the pressing issues faced by Mediterranean countries. It will be a feat, however, if Sarkozy is able to align competing interests and push through policy change in such a diverse forum."
Western foreign policy, geopolitics and systems of governance have not been able to produce the results that the globalists desire. It should be no surprise that France is the first country to recognize rebel forces as legitimate government. According to an AP report, “French diplomatic source insisted that "alongside Britain, we are working on what could be done without NATO. The sight of the NATO flag (in Libya) would be provocative." There are some legal issues that remain, an official speaking for US Defense said "Certain activities," would require a United Nations Security Council resolution, "but what we need is a clear and proper legal basis."
The African Union also rejected "any form of foreign military intervention" in Libya. "The council reaffirmed its firm commitment to the respect of the unity and territorial integrity of Libya," said Ramtane Lamamra, commissioner of AU's Peace and Security Council. The announcements came after NATO ministers decided Thursday to move warships to the central Mediterranean, but failed to reach an agreement on the imposition of a no-fly zone over Libya.
BBC notes, "Col Gaddafi's extensive business interests in Europe have made this a tricky crisis for the EU to navigate. The Libyan Investment Authority (LIA), a huge sovereign wealth fund, has many assets in Europe, including a stake in Italy's Juventus football club.In 2010 Libya provided about 13% of Italy's total gas imports, the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) reports. The ECFR, a leading think-tank, says Libya is even more important as a supplier of crude oil. Its biggest EU customers are Italy (22% of Italy's oil imports), the Irish Republic (23%), Austria (21%), France (15.7%) and Greece (14.6%).
Posts
