Listen to the article
European Union Foreign Ministers and ten Mediterranean countries convened in Barcelona in November 1995 to launch a vast and ambitious geostrategic initiative with a vital socio-economic dimension, the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership. The objective was to establish a zone of stability, prosperity, cooperation and peace encompassing the EU and ten Mediterranean countries (Lebanon, Israel, Syria, Jordan, Palestine, Egypt, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Turkey). The Barcelona Process, initially aimed at stimulating prosperity, development and thereby stability in the Southern Mediterranean countries, had a clear objective: to prevent the emergence of chronic hotspots of tension in this region. Such tensions could have unfortunate repercussions on the EU, notably through waves of clandestine immigration.
Judging by the current “world’s state of affairs” in the Euro-Mediterranean region and beyond (similarly to the US), we are still far from achieving the vision set out in Barcelona. Rapid divergences have emerged among EU countries regarding the geostrategic priorities that should be set for the partnership. Southern EU countries, such as France, Italy and Spain, aimed to prioritize investment projects and development efforts in Mediterranean countries. In contrast, northern European countries, particularly Germany, advocated for a development policy mainly focused on Eastern Europe, especially the nations newly integrated into the EU at that time. This dispute significantly hindered the rapid progress of the Barcelona partnership. However, it was merely a side effect; the real obstacles to advancement arose from chronic destabilization in several Southern Mediterranean countries, compounded by the lethargic policies taken by certain Western states in addressing these challenges. Several voices consistently warned about the serious repercussions for the EU due to the persistence of conflict hotspots in the Middle East. Analysts and experts have often criticized Western complacency towards dictatorial regimes known for “exporting” terrorism and generously “funding” extremist organizations, often fundamentalist, which perpetuate instability not only within the region, but also at the very heart of the Western world.
The Iranian population has repeatedly risen up courageously against the autocratic and bloodthirsty rule of Tehran’s mullah. In response to this popular revolution, haven’t certain senior American officials consistently emphasized that Washington’s goal is not regime change in Tehran, but rather a “change in behavior?” The visible and foreseeable result has been the radicalization of this regime, leading to increased extremism and attempts to destabilize regions across the globe, amid Western complacency towards its actions.
More recently, it is widely acknowledged that the Assad regime, master of brutal repression and chemical weapons usage against its own people, was narrowly spared from a significant strike that could have been fatal, thanks to intervention by the Obama administration in September 2013, following the Ghouta tragedy in the suburbs of Damascus. This same criminal regime continues to hold on to power, against all odds, largely due to Israel’s thinly veiled support!
The Barcelona Euro-Mediterranean Partnership was supposed to establish a climate of security, prosperity, multilateral cooperation and peace in the Mediterranean Basin, seeking to shield the EU from destabilizing waves of illegal immigration. Yet, nearly thirty years later, complacency towards regimes known for “exporting” terrorism and engaging in blind obstructionism has yielded an opposite outcome. The threats from the Hezbollah leader against Cyprus serve as a deplorable illustration of the dangerous repercussions on the Old Continent and the broader West due to the lethargy of certain powers towards radical organizations. These groups’ sole purpose is to dismantle, destabilize and perpetuate war adventures with no horizons, or even worse, sow the seeds of extremism within the Western world itself. The current rise of extremism in several European countries, particularly in France, starkly illustrates the harm of such a policy of “complacency” towards the aggressive and repressive behaviors of regimes known for being the source of any destabilization.
Cyprus, one of Europe’s gateways, is just a half-hour flight away from the hotbeds of subversion fostered by the mullah regime along the Mediterranean shores. The threats against the island, articulated by the standard-bearer (Lebanese-Iranian) of theocratic radicalism, highlight a bitter reality: the promising Barcelona Process initiated in 1995 has, nearly three decades later, evolved into an anti-Euro-Mediterranean partnership… Only a life-saving and rallying resurgence could potentially reverse this trend, despite prevailing evils.
