DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD

The developments in Libya seem to have reached the culminating point. But there seems to be no end in sight. Despite regular statements concerning readiness for peace, none of the parties to the conflict intends to back down from its positions. Each of them is putting forward its own conditions for reconciliation which clearly contradict each other. The eccentric Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddafi, is explaining his intransigence by the West's gross interference in the country's internal affairs. The West, for its part, is accusing Gaddafi of tyranny and despotism. But the West's interest in overthrowing Gaddafi is unlikely to proceed only from these grounds. 

From this standpoint, an analysis of the Union for the Mediterranean project lobbied by France and the Mediterranean Dialogue initiative being implemented under NATO auspices may shed some light on the behind-the-scenes aspects of the great game called the Arab spring.

The Barcelona process initiated by the European Union (EU) at a European and Mediterranean partnership conference in 1995 may be seen as a starting point of the Union for the Mediterranean. Still a presidential candidate at the time, Nicola Sarkozy put forward the idea of transforming the Barcelona process into the Union for the Mediterranean as an item of his election program. The successful implementation of the project was expected to open up the prospect of leadership in the Mediterranean region and the EU for France, turn it into a leading figure in global politics and significantly strengthen its geopolitical positions.

It was believed that the Mediterranean and European unions can work together within the framework of certain common structures, including law-enforcement ones - fight against corruption, terrorism, organized crime and human trafficking. But this desire was of Paris did not particularly impress Germany which is positioning itself as Europe's leading continental power. Berlin realized that its own geopolitical clout would significantly weaken in the proposed context and lead to the strengthening of Paris. Besides, Germany, a classical example of a tellurocratic state, perceived Paris's ambitions as an attempt to establish a thalassocratic alliance of Mediterranean countries. Only after lengthy talks with Paris in March 2008 did Berlin finally give its consent to supporting the Union for the Mediterranean. But only on the condition that it would be joined by all EU countries, including those that do not have access to the Mediterranean Sea. At the same time, Germany is actively strengthening its ties with another tellurocratic country, Russia, trying to play the part of an active moderator in the relations between Russia and the EU. This tactic can be viewed as Berlin's desire to organized a veiled resistance to the thalassocratic Mediterranean union. 

Turkey initially treated Sarkozy's idea with some caution. Ankara refused to support the project if it is seen as an alternative to Turkey's integration into the EU. Subsequently, after receiving assurances that the project is not such an alternative, Ankara agreed to change its attitude and even to participate in it. But its caution is not explained only by that. Today, Turkey, a country that has monopoly control over the Bosporus and Dardanelles, may be legitimately described as the most influential Mediterranean country. But the proposed project may significantly weaken Turkey's clout in the Mediterranean region. Besides, the Union for the Mediterranean covers all the territories that were once part of the Ottoman Empire. Under such circumstances Turkey wouldn't mind playing a central role in the project itself. 

Interestingly, the UK, Turkey's strategic partner and an advocate of Turkish interests in the EU, also supported Ankara's initial position on the Mediterranean Union. But that step of London is seen more as opposition to the growing influence of Paris and as an attempt to serve the interests of Britain's strategic partner, the USA, which is the most powerful and colorful representative of the thalassocratic world now.

Despite these differences, the intense talks over the creation of the Mediterranean union ended in its official establishment by 43 states in Paris in early July 2008. The decision was made that representatives of Israel and the League of Arab States would participate in the organization on equal terms. Libya is considered an observer because its leader Gaddafi refused to attend the organizing summit and described the new organization as a conspiracy intended to undermine the unity of Arab and African nations. Is this the reason behind the problems M. Gaddafi is facing now? Countries such as Egypt, Tunisia, Jordan, Morocco and Syria are also members of the Union. The developments unfolding in them in the last six to seven months are also providing some food for thought. There is an impression that the EU has set itself the goal of eliminating the well-known and significant leaders in these countries and replacing them with weaker and manageable figures. 

While examining these developments, we should not overlook one important factor that worries Europe very much. According to some researchers, there may be a demographic explosion in North America, which will increase the population to 142 million by 2025 and undermine the demographic balance between European Union members and developing countries of the Mediterranean. Under such circumstances it will be practically impossible for ageing Europe to retain control over unwanted migration flows, especially illegal migration. Migrants from these countries want to settle down in trouble-free Europe but at the same time want to preserve their own identity and reject European values. This is causing discontent and annoyance in the West. Besides, such a huge number of migrants falls beyond Jacques Attali's "golden billion" concept which suggests that Western success is limited only to this number. This is why there is increasing speculation lately that European multiculturalism is bulging at the seams. Western experts are worried that there is a reverse process of colonization in the world, i.e. countries that used to be colonies of leading European states are now colonizing European states by way of demographic expansion. It is therefore not ruled out that by initiating revolutionary processes in countries of the Middle East and North Africa, the West is trying to establish regimes similar to the democratic West that will be tasked with ensuring the minimum level of European prosperity. 

When analyzing the developments unfolding in some Middle Eastern and North African countries (especially Maghreb states), we should remember another project, called the Mediterranean Dialogue, which is no less and perhaps even more important than the Union for the Mediterranean. This project, patronized by NATO, was launched practically at the same time as the Union for the Mediterranean. Interestingly, France was actively involved in it too. Back in February 1995, NATO decided to "start direct dialogue with countries of the Mediterranean that are not members of the alliance". After consultations with Mediterranean countries, Egypt, Israel, Morocco, Mauritania and Tunisia accepted the invitation to join the organization, which was subsequently branded as the Mediterranean Dialogue. Afterwards, they were joined by Algeria and Jordan. According to initiators of the dialogue, there is a close connection between stability and security in Europe and stability and security in the Mediterranean region, which makes collective effort a vital necessity. 

Additionally, the Southern Mediterranean, which has a very favorable geographical location and considerable oil and gas reserves that are a major factor in the European fuel and energy complex, is of great strategic importance to Western Europe. A total of 65 per cent of total volume of oil and natural gas imports to Europe pass through the Mediterranean Sea. Energy is also one of the key issues in the Union for the Mediterranean project. However, some Western pundits think it would be wrong to limit the importance of the region to Europe only to that. They believe that this is part of a civilization process that aims to convert this region into an actual and real fragment of a single Europe. The Mediterranean Dialogue is also stimulated by the factor of geographical proximity of North Africa and the North Mediterranean NATO member-states. If NATO distances itself from these problems, it will be unable to affect the developments the way it wants to and trigger a regional crisis that may affect developed countries too. Therefore, the West, having initiated two important projects involving the integration of Middle Eastern and North African countries into Europe, wants to change regimes in the countries that do not live up to the Western understanding of democracy. 

On the face of it, the Union for the Mediterranean and the Mediterranean Dialogue complement each other, especially since the goals and objectives of both projects are practically the same. But there are aspects that do not rule out "mild competition" between them. First, while the former is dominated by France, the Mediterranean Dialogue is being implemented under NATO auspices and the role of the USA in it is beyond doubt. Second, the Mediterranean Dialogue is part of a more ambitious project called the Greater Middle East, which is lobbied by Washington and covers the territory from Morocco to Pakistan and from Kazakhstan to the Mauritius Island in the Indian Ocean. Third, the Union for the Mediterranean unites a large number of countries with different geopolitical interests. Experience shows that under such circumstances the procedure of decision-making and the very efficiency of these decisions always leave a lot to be desired. Today, NATO is the only military and political bloc capable of quickly and efficiently influencing developments in different regions of the world. This is exactly why the UN has been entrusting the most difficult missions to the Alliance lately. Although NATO leaders have often pointed to the importance of a concerted effort within two fundamental Mediterranean initiatives, NATO and the EU, some researchers think the relationship of these organizations is dominated by competition, not by cooperation, and NATO has launched its own Mediterranean program to counter the EU's Barcelona process. This is the context in which the US position should be viewed, as Washington has prevented France from playing the first violin role in the Libyan crisis and succeeded in passing this mission on to NATO. 

There is another interesting aspect in the developments. NATO (or the USA) is interested exclusively in countries of North Africa, leaving aside the regional conflicts south of Sahara. But this tactic of Washington is likely to be of temporary nature.

It is hypothetically possible that Washington, on the way towards establishing global dominance, is introducing certain corrections to H. Mackinder's Heartland Theory. According to the theory, control over Eurasia enables command of the World Island (combination of three components - Europe, Asia and Africa) which eventually leads to global domination. Although the USA is a superpower that effectively controls Europe today, it would be wrong to talk of control over entire Eurasia. Russia and the ever-strengthening China are a deterrent in this direction. The African continent is a different matter. Perhaps Washington is trying to establish full control over Eurasia by establishing geopolitical control over another component of the World Island, Africa. The above leads to the conclusion that the developments in some Middle Eastern and North African countries are the direct consequence of such geopolitical projects as the Union for the Mediterranean and the Mediterranean Dialogue. And this theory, like all others, is quite viable.