David Miliband Speech on European African Integration…..Were You Aware, Of Just What These Fabians Are Planning For YOU?

David Miliband Speech on European African Integration

 

European Parliament November 2007

 
Miliband EU speech in fu

 

 

 

  

Here is the full text of British Foreign Secretary David Miliband’s first major speech on the UK’s relationship with Europe, made at the College of Europe in Bruges, Belgium.

I feel a strong sense of personal history in delivering this lecture today. My father was born in Brussels, my mother in Poland.

My family history reflects the strife which divided the Continent and the values which later united it. This college reflects that history too. You have a sister college in Poland.

The vision of your founder, Henri Brugmans, a hero of the Dutch resistance, was fired by memories of dark days listening to BBC reports of resistance struggle against fascism.

And the people we honour this year, Anna Politkovskaya and Hrant Dink, were exemplars of our basic commitment to freedom of expression, a founding value of the EU. But my speech tonight is not about history. It is about the Europe that you, the students gathered here, will inherit in the future.

President Sarkozy has suggested we need a Groupe des Sages to focus on the Europe of 2030. Today I want to enter that debate, not to engage in a piece of futurology, but to suggest how the EU can help to shape the world of 2030.

My argument is this: The prospects and potential for human progress have never been greater. But our prosperity and security are under threat. Protectionism seeks to stave off globalisation rather than manage it. Religious extremists peddle hatred and division. Energy insecurity and climate change threaten to create a scramble for resources. And rogue states and failing states risk sparking conflicts, the damage of which will spill over into Europe.’

These threats provide a new raison d’etre for the European Union. New because the unfinished business of internal reform to update our economic and social model is on its own not enough to engage with the big issues, nor the hopes and fears, of European citizens.

For the EU because nation-states, for all their continuing strengths, are too small to deal on their own with these big problems, but global governance is too weak.

 

 

  

 

 

 

David Miliband is the son of Ralph Miliband, born Adolphe in Brussels in 1924, and Marion Kozak. Ralph was a well known Marxist political theorist. Ralph, who died in 1994, is buried in Highgate Cemetery close to his idol, Karl Marx.

David’s brother, Edward Samuel Miliband, is also a member of Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s cabinet where he has been chairman of the Treasury’s Council of Economic Advisers, which directs the UK’s long-term economic planning.

Beyond that, the family history gets confusing and misleading, on purpose I’m sure.

More here: Who Is David Miliband ?

So the EU can be a pioneer and a leader. Our single market and the standards we set for it, the attractions of membership, and the legitimacy, diversity and political clout of 27 member states are big advantages. The EU will never be a superpower, but could be a model power of regional cooperation.

For success, the EU must be open to ideas, trade and people. It must build shared institutions and shared activities with its neighbours. It must be an Environmental Union as well as a European Union. And it must be able to deploy soft and hard power to promote democracy and tackle conflict beyond its borders.

As Gordon Brown said on Monday there is no longer a distinction between ‘over there’ and ‘over here’.

Let me begin with some reflections on Britain’s relationship with Europe.

“We British are as much heirs to the legacy of European culture as any other nation.”

The churches, literature and language of the UK “all bear witness to the cultural riches we have drawn from Europe.”

“Without the European legacy of political ideas we could not have achieved as much as we did.”

“Our destiny is in Europe.”

Those are not my words. They were delivered by Margaret Thatcher to this College in 1988 in her famous Bruges lecture.

But despite these words, Mrs Thatcher’s speech was haunted by demons.

A European superstate bringing in socialism by the back door. A country called Europe that stripped individual nations of their national identity. Utopian ideals and language that obstructed practical progress.

These were the demons that led her some years later to conclude that far from being vital to Britain’s progress: “In my lifetime Europe has been the source of our problems, not the source of our solutions”.

These demons still haunt some people. Thanks to Mrs Thatcher, “Bruges”, has become a rallying cry of Euro-scepticism.

But I agree with my predecessor as Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd who said in 2005: “The myth that we are threatened with a European superstate is still nourished in the Conservative cul-de-sac.

“Certainly there are Continental idealists who bitterly regret that it has faded away, but faded it has, as has been clear since Maastricht.”

Open markets, subsidiarity, better regulation and enlargement are now far more part of the conventional vocabulary of European debate than a United States of Europe, centralised taxation or a common industrial policy.

The truth is that the EU has enlarged, remodelled and opened up. It is not and is not going to become a superstate.

But neither is it destined to become a superpower.

An American academic has defined a superpower as “a country that has the capacity to project dominating power and influence anywhere in the world…and so may plausibly attain the status of global hegemon.”

There is only one superpower in the world today – the United States. There may be others on the horizon, such as China and India, but the US has enormous economic, social, cultural and military strength. In terms of per capita income alone it will remain by far the dominant power for my lifetime.

For Europeans, that should not be a source of dread: there is a great shared project for Europe and America, to embed our values and commitments in international rules and institutions.

The EU is not and never will be a superpower. An EU of 27 nation states or more is never going to have the fleetness of foot or the fiscal base to dominate. In fact economically and demographically Europe will be less important in the world of 2050 that it was in the world of 1950.

Our opportunity is different. The EU has the opportunity to be a model power.

It can chart a course for regional cooperation between medium-sized and small countries.

Through its common action, it can add value to national effort, and develop shared values amidst differences of nationality and religion.

As a club that countries want to join, it can persuade countries to play by the rules, and set global standards. In the way it dispenses its responsibilities around the world, it can be a role model that others follow.

This speech is intended to set out the basis of such progress.

The EU has been defined for the past 50 years by a focus on internal change: by a Franco-German bargain over industry and agriculture, by the creation of a single market and the drive for basic shared social standards; by EMU. And the need to attend to internal policy problems remains.

We should be immensely proud that in the post second world war period Europeans drove down levels of economic inequality and social injustice. That is the cause that brought me into politics.

And the modernisation of our social and economic systems is essential to preserve those gains. That is why the UK is fully engaged in the current debates about policy reform in Europe.

But that will no longer be enough. The defining challenges of the 21st century are global in scope, not national. We have spent a decade or more debating institutional reform; everyone who has participated is exhausted; and the rest of the European population are either bored or angry.

The EU must now apply itself to managing the risks and maximising the benefits of the next wave of globalisation, both for its own citizens and around the world. This is where we need new thinking.

The insecurities and threats of 2030 are clear. A Europe at war not within its borders, but struggling to cope with forces beyond its borders. Global capital, people and goods with whom it has not made peace.

Religious extremism and division on its doorstep. Energy insecurity and climate change which threatens our security as well as our prosperity. Conflict and instability in regions where we have economic as well as moral interests.

To avoid that future, we need to base our next generation Europe on four principles.

My starting point is that a model power in the 21st century must be one that looks outwards. As Jose Manuel Barroso said, “…global Europe must be an open Europe”.

So my first guiding principle is that we must keep ourselves open – open to trade, open to ideas and open to investment.

This is not a foregone conclusion. Across Europe, it is tempting for producers to seek the shelter of tariffs, for environmentalists to yearn for a return to a (it has to be said) mythical world of self-sufficiency, for communities to fear unplanned migration.

I understand the concerns. Openness creates risks and insecurities as well as opportunities. Our national welfare states must help people adjust to rapid economic and social change.

This is tough. Migration is a big issue. And while Europe can be a magnet for the world’s best talent, it cannot be a tent for the world’s poorest people.

Without some migration, an ageing and declining population will leave Europe facing economic stagnation and unsustainable social security bills.

But integration of new communities is vital. We shall only tackle the root cause of migration – the poor economic prospects in neighbouring countries – if we continue to open up our markets.

That is why, on economic and social grounds, the case against economic protectionism is overwhelming.

Openness – to new investment, new products and new services – provides the competitive spur needed to raise our game. An open regulatory environment provides the basis for the highest value.

If we hold back on open trade, we will only hold back the process of modernising our economies and raising productivity.

We will force European consumers to pay higher prices. We will strengthen the hand of protectionist lobbies beyond our borders. We will deny millions of African farmers a lifeline out of poverty.

If we have the courage to press for more free trade and investment, and act as a model power in going further and faster than other countries, we will enrich ourselves and the rest of the world.

That is why we need to put European agriculture on a sustainable and modern footing: reduce tariffs, open up energy markets and complete the creation of a single market in services.

This is not a race to the bottom. Europe is a model for reconciling economic dynamism with social justice. We must use the power of the single market to export these values.

We have already seen how the single-market can pull up standards in the rest of the world. Thanks to the Reach Directive the chemicals in Chinese-made products have to comply with European standards.

The size of our market means that European low carbon standards can become the global standard-setter.

My second guiding principle is that we should use the power of shared institutions and shared activities to help overcome religious, regional, and cultural divides, especially with the Islamic world.

There is, after all, a bleak scenario for 2030: a world more divided by religion, both between and within countries. Greater threats – both at home and abroad – from terrorists and rogue states. Growing hostility towards the West.

Rejection of the global economic changes that many people believe has made us rich at their expense.

The EU can help lead the search for an alternative. The EU itself represents a triumph of shared values.

Now we need to find and express shared values across religious and not just national lines, so that Europe and its Muslim neighbours enjoy strong, unbreakable ties, and peace allows us to talk, debate, trade, build businesses, build communities and build friendships.

We can do this only by creating shared institutions and engaging in shared activities that provide a living alternative to the narrative which says the West and the Islamic world are destined to clash.

There are obvious immediate needs:

*
In Iraq, where we are moving forward together to bolster the forces of economic development and political reconciliation.

*
In the Middle East where the EU Action Plan needs to be a vital part of the road from Annapolis to a viable Palestinian state alongside a safe and secure Israel.

*
And in Lebanon, where the EU has almost 8,000 thousand troops deployed to help preserve stability.

But our top priority must be to keep our promises on enlargement. As Vaclav Havel said in December 2002, “the vision of becoming part of the EU was…the engine that drove the democratisation and transformation of” of Central and Eastern Europe.

Enlargement is by far our most powerful tool for extending stability and prosperity.

Countries that are already on the accession path – Turkey and the Western Balkans – must be given full membership as soon as they fully meet the criteria.

And Turkey and all Cypriots need to play a constructive role in UN efforts to solve the Cyprus problem and unify the island on a bi-zonal and bi-communal basis.

If we fail to keep our promises to Turkey, it will signal a deep and dangerous divide between East and West.

Beyond that, we must keep the door open, retaining the incentive for change that the prospect of membership provides.

Being part of Europe should be about abiding by the shared rules – the acquis – that embody our shared values by respecting our separate identities and traditions.

Not all countries will be eligible for full membership, or show the will to join. So we should take the European Neighbourhood Policy a step further. We must state clearly that participation is not an alternative to membership, or a waiting room. And we must offer access to the full benefits of the single market.

The first step would be the accession of neighbouring countries – especially Russia and the Ukraine – to the WTO. Then we must build on this with comprehensive free-trade agreements.

The goal must be a multilateral free-trade zone around our periphery – a version of the European Free Trade Association that could gradually bring the countries of the Mahgreb, the Middle-East and Eastern-Europe in line with the single-market, not as an alternative to membership, but potentially as a step towards it.

Finally, we need to create more shared activities to build shared values and bring us closer to our neighbours.

ERASMUS student exchanges have been hugely successfully over the last twenty years in fostering a common understanding and common identity between European students.

Some 150,000 students participate every year, taking the opportunity to absorb another culture and learn another language.

Let us set the goal that by 2030 a third of our ERASMUS exchanges will be to countries beyond our borders, including those of the Middle-East and North Africa.

My third guiding principle is that a model power should champion international law and human rights not just internally, but externally too. We need to live by our values and principles beyond our borders, not just within them.

Peace and democracy has settled across our continent. To that extent, the EU has been an extraordinary success.

But, as the wars in the Balkans showed, our record is not perfect. And our task will not be complete until the final piece in the Balkans jigsaw – Kosovo – is resolved.

But in the future the main threats to our security will come from farther afield. From failed or fragile states, where law and order dissolve, where the economy stops, where arbitrary violence rules, and terrorists can operate at will. We can see the terrible effects in Darfur and Chad today.

From rogue states, that defy and endanger the international community by breaking the common rules we have all agreed to abide by. And from non-state actors – like Al Qaeda – hell bent on destroying our way of life.

Europe is well equipped to contribute a positive response to these threats. Like NATO, its members have shared values which can generate the political and military commitment for decisive action.

But like the UN, its member states have the full spectrum of economic, development, legislative, political and military tools.

We must begin by establishing a wider consensus on the rules governing the international system.

We must use the legitimacy and political clout of 27 members to enshrine the principle of Responsibility to Protect at the heart of the international system.

We must be prepared to uphold commitments made under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. We must mobilize member states behind the establishment of an Arms Trade Treaty.

We must also overcome the blockages to collaboration with NATO. We welcome the signs of increased willingness on the part of key partners to do so.

First, European member states must improve their capabilities. It’s embarrassing that when European nations – with almost two million men and women under arms – are only able, at a stretch, to deploy around 100 thousand at any one time.

EU countries have around 1,200 transport helicopters, yet only about 35 are deployed in Afghanistan. And EU member states haven’t provided any helicopters in Darfur despite the desperate need there.

European nations need to identify the challenges we face; the capabilities we consequently need; then identify targets for national investment in equipment, research, development, and training necessary to make more of our armed forces; work together for efficiency; and back it up with political drive.

A second thing we must do is to strengthen our ability to respond to crises in a more comprehensive way. Increasing our capacity to put peacekeepers into the field – whether on UN, EU or NATO missions – is a crucial part of cooperation.

As the prime minister set out earlier this week, military forces should be deployed on peacekeeping duties with civilian crisis management experts as an integral part of the operation.

There is limited value in securing a town if law and order breaks down as soon as the troops move on. There is limited gain in detaining terrorists and criminals if there is no courthouse to try them in or jailhouse to hold them in.

Security without development will soon alienate local populations. Development without security is impossible. They are two sides of the same coin.

Third, we must use our power and influence, not just to resolve conflict, but prevent it. We must show we are prepared to take a lead and fulfil our responsibilities.

Javier Solana and George Robertson, working together for the EU and NATO, brought Macedonia back from the brink of civil war in 2001.

Our military deployment to north-eastern Congo in helped plug a critical gap in the UN’s presence there in 2003. We have built on UN sanctions to increase pressure on countries like Iran and Sudan.

And where the UN has been reluctant to act – as on Zimbabwe and Burma, where the regimes continue to oppress their people – we have introduced our own measures.

My fourth guiding principle is that any model power in the 21st century must be a low carbon power, so the European Union must become an Environmental Union.

More than any other area, the decisions we take on energy now will affect the world we inhabit in 2030.

In the decisions made at the Spring Council last year, the EU showed its ambitions to be model power on climate change. By setting unilateral targets, with the offer to go further if others do, we are using our political clout to increase the pressure on others to act.

By backing those targets with regulations and a carbon price, we are beginning to use our economic clout to transform product markets too. But to become an Environmental Union but we must go further.

We must set ambitious, long term regulations to phase out carbon emissions in key areas, transform product markets through the standards we set, and gain economic advantage in environmental innovation.

The priorities are clear. We must agree a timetable for reducing average vehicle emissions to 100g/km by 2020-2025 (compared with average EU emissions of 160 g/km), on the road towards a zero-emission vehicle standard across Europe.

We must ensure that by 2015, we have 12 demonstration projects in Carbon Capture and Storage, and that by 2020, all new coal-fired power stations must be fitted with Carbon Capture and Storage.

We should ensure the long term future of the EU ETS, to include more sectors of our economy, and to become the hub of a global carbon market which generates the incentives and the funding for the shift to low carbon power and transport not just in Europe but around the world.

The third phase of the EU ETS provides an opportunity to scale up and reform the CDM – to move it from a focus on individual projects, to groups of projects or whole sectors. We have already agreed to extend the EU ETS to include aviation, but we must also consider the case for surface transport.

And we should consider moving from individual countries setting their own allocation to harmonised allocations on the road to cap-setting done centrally. As the European Central Bank regulates money supply for the Eurozone, it is worth thinking whether the idea of a European Carbon Bank could in future set limits on the production of carbon across Europe.

Discussions on the future of the EU budget must take account of this context.

The current budget will be worth 860bn Euros over 7 years.

The three tests for the future of the EU budget are clear: is it advancing national and European public interest? Is grant spending the right tool to achieve our objectives, or could regulation, or loan-finance, provide a better alternative? And is it demonstrating sound financial management?

Over time, I believe that points to aligning the budget more closely with the external global challenges we face, in particular, a focus on climate change.

Environmental security not food security is the challenge of the future.

It is telling that those who are near us, want to join us. And that those who are far away, want to imitate us. The EU can claim major successes.

The single market has created peace and prosperity out of a continent ravaged by war. Enlargement has transformed Central and Eastern Europe. European forces across the world are active in preventing and resolving conflict.

These are real achievements. The common view is that they represent a triumph over institutional arrangements.

But the constitutional debate shows that people don’t want major institutional upheaval. Unanimity is slow but it respects national identities.

The commission is not directly elected but that is exactly why it avoids the temptation of national and political affiliation and offers a wider European perspective.

The lesson, I think, is that in politics we tend to overestimate our ability to influence events in the short term, but we hugely underestimate our ability to shape our long term future.

That is particularly true for the European Union.

Across Europe, people are feeling a divergence between the freedom and control they have in their personal lives, and the sense of powerlessness they face against the great global challenges we face: from preventing conflict and terrorism to addressing climate change, energy insecurity, and religious extremism.

They are confident about personal progress, but pessimistic about societal progress.

Europe has the chance to help fill this void. There is a clear choice.

Focus on internal not external challenges, institutions rather than ideals. Fail to combine hard and soft power, the disciplines and benefits of membership with the ability to make a difference beyond our borders. The result – the return of protectionism, energy insecurity, division with the Islamic world, and unmanaged migration from conflict.

Or Europe can look global and become a model regional power.

We can use the power of the EU – the size of our single market, our ability to set global standards, the negotiating clout of 27 members, the attractions of membership, the hard power of sanctions and troops, the power of Europe as an idea and a model – not to substitute for nation states but to do those things to provide security and prosperity for the next generation.

We are pragmatic. We have missed some opportunities. But pragmatism and idealism should be partners. And the UK is determined to make them so.

BBC 15 november 2007David Miliband: EU ‘should expand beyond Europe’

Video

Balder Blog 18 august 2009David Miliband: Der er omstændigheder hvor terrorisme kan retfærdiggøres

Daily Mail 16 august 2009David Miliband There are circumstances in which terrorism can be justifiable


Euro Mediterranean – Secret EU agreement on Muslim immigration; The Barcelona Delaration

Other Articles about Eurabia, Euromediterranean, Barcelona Declaration, Unlimited Immigration to Europe. English – Deutsch – Dansk

http://balder.org/avisartikler/David-Miliband-Speech-on-European-African-Integration-20071115.php

Advertisements

One response to “David Miliband Speech on European African Integration…..Were You Aware, Of Just What These Fabians Are Planning For YOU?

  1. We can see the terrible effects in Darfur and Chad today.

    From rogue states, that defy and endanger the international community by breaking the common rules we have all agreed to abide by. And from non-state actors – like Al Qaeda – hell bent on destroying our way of life.

    WHAT CULT DO THESE GANGS BELONG TO MILIBAND THAT CAUSE SUCH MAYHEM–DO TELL?

    COULD IT BE THOSE YOU LOT SIGNED UP TO TAKE OVER EUROPE?

    THE EURO-ARAB PARTNERSHIP

    SUMMARY

    The Euro-Arab partnership favors the implementation of Islam in Europe, criminalizes any criticism of Islam and finally prepares a long term merger of the European Union with the Arab world.

    Moreover, the European institutions have just created a new Foundation in order to perform these goals. It will promote change in education and culture with a large place to religion and the learning of arabic. Instead of focusing on science and modern knowledge, the European education will return to the early Middle Ages! The Foundation also aims to target the schools of journalism and to develop arabic TV channels in Europe. It means that this Foundation intends to influence children, scholars and journalists in the entire Europe.

    These disclosures are so shocking that they seem incredible. Consequently, we extensively use links which report to the background papers.

    1-EURO-ARAB PARTNERSHIP 2-FOUNDATION 3-CONCLUSION

    ——————————————————————————–

    1-THE EURO-ARAB PARTNERSHIP

    11-The Barcelona process

    1-The Euro-Mediterranean Conference held in Barcelona on 27-28 November 1995, marked the official starting point of the Euro-Arab Partnership (Barcelona Process). Today, this Partnership comprises 35 members, 25 EU Member States and 10 Mediterranean Partners (Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Palestinian Authority, Syria, Tunisia and Turkey). Libya has observer status since 1999. In the Barcelona Declaration, the Euro-Mediterranean partners established the three main objectives of the Partnership (Click here and then on the Barcelona declaration):

    -The definition of a common area of peace and stability through the reinforcement of political and security dialogue (Political and Security Chapter).

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

    -The rapprochement between peoples through a social, cultural and human partnership aimed at encouraging understanding between cultures and exchanges between civil societies (Social, Cultural and Human Chapter).

    2-When compared with other regional or even bilateral external policy, the Barcelona process is the sole which includes a religious component: In their declaration, the Ministers reaffirmed “ That dialogue and respect between cultures and religions are a necessary precondition for bringing the peoples closer”. Usually, in civilized countries, a dialogue between religions only involves private persons and organizations (Such as Churches). In many European countries (notably in France ) State and religion are strictly separated: It means that a public civil servant is not authorized to deal with religious matters. In fact, a dialogue between religions has only a meaning in the Arab countries where Religion, State and society are often mixed.

    In entering in such a dialogue, Europe has modified its behavior to conformwith the outdated Arab conception of society and habits ( Regarding this Arab history, culture and habits, go to the greater Middle East on this site).

    12-The process is speeding up!

    In the wake of the events of 11 September 2001, the European governments would have the opportunity to reexamine this curious dialogue. In fact, due to their Munich spirit, they reinforced it!

    1-At the Ghent European Council of 19 October 2001, the heads of State and government expressed the desire to “avoid any equating of terrorism with the Arab and Muslim world”. Does it mean that the terrorists in Moscow, Madrid, and London are not Muslims?

    2-The heads of States also decided to promote “A dialogue of equals between our civilizations […] both at international level and within [EU] societies”. In doing so , they accepted the cultural relativism and multiculturalism inside their own European territories! It is quite astonishing to promote the respect of traditions and values such as the subordination of women, the stoning and so on!

    3-According to these objectives, the President of the Commission set up a High-Level Advisory Group (15 “highly respected personalities”). We have to underline a very shocking fact: This group included Tarik Ramadan.

    13-The hidden agenda of the Barcelona Process

    To know the agenda, we have just to report to the ministerial conferences of the Barcelona process and to the conclusions of the High-Level Advisory Group including Tarik Ramadan. Indeed, the conclusions of this group were endorsed by the foreign Ministers. ( Click here, then click on “Report of the high level advisory group” and finally click on “The report”)

    131-To favor mass Arab migrations in Europe

    1-In the conclusions of the conference hold in Naples, it was stated: “Ministers reaffirm the importance of migrations and express the view that if carefully managed, migrations can be a positive factor for the socio economic growth of the whole region”. (Click here. Then click on “Ministerial conferences” and then on “6th Euromed foreign Ministers conference: Naples 2003. Finally, click on”Documents” and then on “presidency conclusions”)

    2-The high level advisory group enhances this idea:“The new member States where the population is ageing more rapidly will in turn become host countries for migrants from the southern Mediterranean”.(Click here. Then click on “Report of the high level advisory group” and finally click on the “report”. On page 10)

    132-To favor implementation of Islam in Europe

    1-Regarding Islam, the high level advisory group considers that“ The two future developments (Bulgaria and Turkey) will have a number of positive effects on the prospects for immigration and on the place of Islam in Europe”(!)(On page 11)

    2-The main idea is to transform our genuine culture. Clearly, the advisory group states:” On the North-North axis, where the original cultural background needs to be transformed and adapted to an increasingly multicultural situation, the answer should involve both education with special emphasize on early childhood and working and community life.”(Click here. Then click on “Report of the high level advisory group” and finally click on “proposition de plan”).

    3-Does it mean that in counterpart the Arab countries intend to respect our own values? Absolutely not: The high level advisory group posits that “ In suchyoung societies (the Arab societies) culture and dialogue cannot have the same role and scope as they do for the ageing, cynical populations of the northern mediterranean”(!) (Click here. Then click on “Report of the high level advisory group” and finally click on “the report”. On page 12. In the French version, the word “cynical” is translated by “désabusé”- “disenchanted” in English. In fact, “cynical” has exactly the same meaning in French and in English)

    133-To Criminalize any criticism of Islam.

    1-In most Arab countries, any criticism of Islam is a penal offence. Since the beginning of the Barcelona process, the European Commission tries to implement this idea in Europe. For example, in Naples, the foreign Ministers stressed the need “to stand up against both anti semitism and islamophobia as well as xenophobia”.

    2-Clearly, this assert is shocking: Of course anti semitism enters in a racist definition and is legally condemned in many European countries. On the other hand, islamophobia has no connections with racism and only means the fact to dislike Islam. It is just a problem of freedom of expression.

    3-Unfortunately, this scandalous assert has right now an official international standard. In Warsaw, the 16 and 17 May 2005, the Council of Europe adopted the following resolution: “We strongly condemn all forms of intolerance and discrimination, in particular those based on sex, race and religion, including anti semitism and islamophobia. We affirm our determination to further develop, within the Council of Europe, rules and effective machinery to prevent and eradicate them….We entrust our colleague, Jean-Claude Juncker, to prepare, in his personal capacity, a report on the relationship between the Council of Europe and the European Union, on the basis of the decisions taken at the Summit and taking into account the importance of the human dimension of European construction”

    4-Since Jean-Claude Juncker, the former President of the European Union, adopted this resolution, we can expect a further European directive in order to sue any people for disliking Islam (Exactly like in Arab countries).

    This attempt should be a major set back regarding freedom of speech and conscience.

    134-Finally, to prepare a merger between Europe and the Arab world

    1-The Commission aims to enlarge Europe not only to Turkey but also to North Africa and the Middle East. The idea of a wider Europe was endorsed by the the sixth Euro-Mediterranean Conference of Foreign Affairs Ministers in Naples on 2 and 3 December 2003.(Click here. Then click on “Ministerial conferences” and then on “6th Euromed foreign Ministers conference: Naples 2003)

    It was stated that the EU’s Wider Europe policy offers the EU’s neighboring partners “Gradual integration into the expanded European internal market and the possibility of ultimately reaching the EU’s four fundamental freedoms: Free movement of goods, services, capital and people”. It means a merging of people and cultures.

    According to this purpose, the creation of an European Mediterranean parliamentary Assembly was setting up (120 elected European representatives will cohabit with the puppets appointed by the Arabs dictatorships!).

    2-From an historical point of view, this policy could appear like a nostalgia of the Roman Empire which included the Middle East and the North coast of Africa. However you have to take notice that this era preceded the surge of Islam. By the Roman time, the whole Mediterranean area was influenced by Greek ideas and habits.The beliefs and living standards were quite the same in Roma as in Alexandria. With the Arab invasion, all this Mediterranean civilization entered into a sharp differentiation in beliefs, culture, daily habits and so on. Since the fall of the Roman Empire until today, the Arab and Muslim conquest has been the worst and constant threat for the Christianity. Indeed, this story does not seem to be ended! A new Mediterranean civilization should imply a complete reform of Islam. We are very far from this objective.

    1-EURO-ARAB PARTNERSHIP 2-FOUNDATION 3-CONCLUSION

    ——————————————————————————–

    2–THE ANNA LINDH FOUNDATION

    In order to perform these goals, a new Foundation was created: The Anna Lindh Euro Mediterranean Foundation for the Dialogue between Cultures began its activities on 1 November 2004 ( The Swedish Foreign Minister Anna Lindh, murdered by a mad man, was an activist of the Palestinian cause and campaigned for the boycott of Israel. She criticized the American policy against the terrorism.). The seat of which is Bibliotheca Alexandria in Egypt. Click here. Its new web site is ww.euromedalex.org.

    21-Officials goals

    The Anna Lindh Foundation will:

    -Promote knowledge, recognition and mutual respect between the cultures, traditions and values which prevail in the partners.

    -Identify, develop and promote areas of cultural convergence between the Euro-Mediterranean countries and peoples, with the aim in particular of promoting tolerance, cultural understanding and avoiding stereotypes, xenophobia and racism,

    -Encourage initiatives which aim at promoting a dialogue between religions in the Euro-Mediterranean region.

    Once again, when compared with other regional Foundations such as the Europe Asia Foundation, the Anna Lindh Foundation is the sole which includes religious matters on a large scale (Go to the Europe Asia Foundation and scrutinize the differences: The Asian Foundation does not intend to mix religions with cultural exchanges!)

    22-Real goals

    Once again, we have to report to the high advisory group ( Conclusions endorsed by the foreign ministers) in order to understand the real goals of the Foundation. As we shall see, the Anna Lindh Foundation is conceived as a propaganda body in order to distort education, cultures and media.

    221-Change in education

    1-The project focuses on early child education through the creation of a framework of school teachers, education experts and academics.

    The advisory group recommends to change the content of education ” School syllabus should give a central place to subjects that help to shape cultural identity and civic consciousness, like history, the comparative study of religions, literature, the visual arts and languages” (On page 28 of the report). The advisory group notes that ” The difficulty of the exercise lies in integrating religion into the field of education, taking into account its irreducibility and its mission to provide absolute truth” (!)(on page 29)

    2-Of course, it is recommended to rewrite History: “Schools books dealing with the history of the mediterranean region will have to be reexamined to identify all the negative stereotypes and treat them as such”(on page 31 )

    3-Moreover, the group recommends the learning of arabic in Europe.

    According to these recommendations, instead of focusing on science and modern knowledge, the European education will return to the early Middle Ages with a large place to religion, comparative history, and absolute truth!

    222-Change in culture

    1-The Foundation propagates the cultural relativism which depreciates the historical assets of the greater European civilization.

    Did you know that Beethoven, Chopin, Schubert, Bach found their musical inspiration in the Arab world? Well! listen to the Dr.Traugott Schoefthaler, Executive Director of the Foundation! he says “We have interesting tasks ahead of us: helping young people in Europe discover the Mediterranean roots of “their music”, and bringing back to the South what Europe has made with inspiration it took from the Arab region. ”

    2-Moreover, the notion “German culture” (As well as French, British or European culture) is expected to be replaced by “Cultural life in germany”. Of course, the Foundation does not suggest that the notion of “Arab culture” should be replaced by “Cultural life in the Arab world”!

    223-Media, Journalists and propaganda

    1-The Foundation will target the schools of journalism. It will develop arabic TV channels in Europe ( Like Al Manar?). Moreover, “The Foundation could be responsible for activities such as instituting an award system to recognize excellence and reward due merit to individuals who have made substantial contributions towards the development of Euro-Mediterranean relations”. ( click here and then click on “document” and on “Euromed Foundation for a dialogue of cultures”. On page 6)

    2-Clearly, it is propaganda office financed by the European taxpayers.

    23-Last developments

    The Foundation has just organized a conference in association with the Islamic Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization ; the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC); the Arab League Educational, Cultural and Scientific Organization ( In Rabat, Morocco, 14 to 16 June )

    At the opening of the conference, the delegate of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), pointed to the rising danger of Islamophobia. He also noted that OIC had set up an observatory for monitoring and documenting cases of Islamophobia. Furthermore, he called for a review of textbooks and curricula in the West to counter an environment hostile to Islam.

    As a result, the conclusions of the conference notably focus on the following goals: To provide sufficient information, especially for young citizens, on the major religions…To promote national legislation and international normative standards or instruments to guard against the defamation of the Other in school curricula…. To pursue studies on stereotypes conveyed in school textbooks concerning the culture of the “other” and take action to correct them…. To establish an interregional observatory on textbooks to monitor stereotyping, prejudices, inaccuracies and misconceptions in different subject areas and make provisions for corrective action…. To promote the teaching of Arabic outside Arabic-speaking countries and so on.

    Clearly, the Anna Lindh Foundation agrees with these offences against freedom of expression and education. Just report to http://www.euromedalex.org. Click on “events” and then on “news”.

    1-EURO-ARAB PARTNERSHIP 2-FOUNDATION 3-CONCLUSION

    ——————————————————————————–

    3-CONCLUSION

    These disclosures are so shocking that they seem incredible. However, European politicians and bureaucracy have accepted that. Some observers refer to the cowardice of Europe facing with the risks of terrorism. In our opinion, we must also take in account the results of grand corruption. Go to world corruption

    1-EURO-ARAB PARTNERSHIP 2-FOUNDATION 3-CONCLUSION

    http://www.freeworldacademy.com/globalleader/europeanconstitution.htm

    THE FABIAN MARXIST SPEAKS WITH FORKED TONGUE- EXCEPT WITH HIS COMMIE BUDDIES!!

    ANOTHER FOREIGNER TELLING BRITS HOW TO LIVE!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s