The Continuation of Eurafrica after WWII
Along with Pan-Europa, the notion of Eurafrica continued to be advocated and institutionalized after WWII. The Congress of Europe (Hague, 1948) considered the development of African colonies an “imperative necessity” and a “collective benefit” for a war-devastated Europe to emerge as “a third force in world politics”[i]. The Organization for European Economic Cooperation (OEEC, 1948) was established to administer the Marshall Plan/European Recovery Program, the American initiative to financially aid post-war Europe ($13 billion). This move effectively institutionalised Eurafrica. The OEEC established an Overseas Territories Working Group “to promote European cooperation in colonial affairs, particularly towards Africa” and involved long term plans in water works, heavy construction, infrastructure, and agriculture[ii].
In 1952 the Council of Europe (1949), which developed out of the Pan-European Union and the Hague Congress, adopted the Strasbourg Plan. This Plan aimed at profiting Europe by the joint development of the raw materials of African colonies and the settlement of these overseas territories to curb overpopulation in Europe[iii]. The Council also adopted the Schuman Plan (1950), which was vital for European integration and the development and exploitation of African resources, giving rise to the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) established by the Treaty of Paris (1951) involving France, West Germany, Italy, and the Benelux countries.
The ‘chief architect’ and president of the ECSC was Jean Monnet, who thought that “France could give Africa as a 'dowry to Europe’”, a strategy that would also “seduce the Germans”[iv]. Several years later, the same countries that signed the Treaty of Paris were involved in the Rome Treaty negotiations of 1956-1957. These discussions involved the promotion of the “economic and social development of the [colonial] countries and territories” and the establishment of “close economic relations between them and the Community as a whole”. The signing of the Rome Treaties signaled the birth of the European Economic Community (EEC, 1957), a customs union that aimed to incorporate all the colonial possessions of the member countries: “French West and Equatorial Africa, Belgian Congo and Ruanda-Urundi, Italian Somaliland and Netherlands New Guinea”[v].
During these developments, Guy Mollet, socialist premier of France, claimed that Europe’s “economic development will bring about a better standard of living to the Europeans as well as to the African peoples freely associated here. This is not a hazy dream, I am firmly convinced that EURAFRICA will be the reality of tomorrow”[vi]. Many African states agreed. In 1963, under the Yaoundé Convention, a total of eighteen independent African states approved of multilateral EEC partnerships and by the mid-1970s, under the Lomé Convention, most African states had chosen EEC association.
Economic Revival, Foreign Cheap Labor, and Cultural Marxism
Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi’s notion of Eurafrica lacked any explicit mention of the African peoples or the Arabs of Africa and the Middle East and their cultures becoming embedded in Europe via mass-immigration. It merely envisioned the eventual Europeanization of Africans through modernization[vii]. Kalergi thought that “Europe is bound together by the Christian religion, European science, art and culture, which rest on a Christian-Hellenic basis.” There was also no indication that Islam was integral to the foundation of European culture and societies, or that Europe required cultural enrichment from the Third World, or that Europe required massive immigration in order to survive, things that are claimed today by leading European elites. Kalergi made it quite clear that Europe had a distinct identity in contrast to other cultures:
European culture is said to be proudly ‘distinct from the Islamic, Buddhist, Hindu and Confucian cultures of Asia’[viii].But this all began to change very noticeably in the 1960s and 70s.
Pre-1950s immigration in Europe was intra-European and European nations were overwhelmingly White in population. With the founding of the Atlantic Charter (1941) and the UDHR (1948), however, a new global order was set in place that would influence the opening of Western nations to non-European immigration from the Third-World (decolonisation, emphasis on equality, independence, universal rights, anti-discrimination laws and non-race based immigration selection criteria).
The Marshall Plan (1948-1952) ushered in an "economic miracle" and about ten years after the war, after rebuilding was almost finished, immigration was officially initiated from the Third World. At this time, the economy was booming and more workers were sought from high unemployment countries in Europe, such as Greece, Italy, and Spain.
On 30 October 1961, the bilateral labour recruitment treaty between Turkey and Germany was signed, which initiated temporary work permits and the arrival of large numbers of Turks as "guest workers" (cheap labourers), who, instead of leaving after their set time of employment (at first it was two years, then in 1964 this was extended and family migration began too), stayed and established Turkish diasporic communities in Germany. Germany also signed recruitment treaties with Morocco (1963) and Tunisia (1965).
Large numbers of Algerians had migrated to France in the interwar and post WWII era. The French had settled the Algerian coastal plain and aimed at integrating Algeria into the French nation as a province. Algerian soldiers who had fought alongside the French during World War I were given French citizenship and many sought work (as cheap labourers). As for Britain, with the dismantling of the British Commonwealth, many Commonwealth citizens of the West Indies, Pakistan, and India were granted British citizenship and travelled to Britain to work as cheap labourers in the factories and mills of the North. In these cases, the opening of the borders to non-Europeans was justified on both economic and cosmopolitan grounds (France and Britain are nations of citizens regardless of ethnicity).
Simultaneous to these economic developments was the entrenchment of Fabian (Britain) and Frankfurt School (Germany) socialism into mainstream society on both sides of the Atlantic. These two very influential cosmopolitan movements, particularly the ‘permeation’ strategies of Fabian socialism and the ‘long march’ of cultural Marxism, were factors, along with the efforts of pan-European cosmopolitanism, peace movements, and expanded education, that gave rise, in the 1950s and 60s, to a ‘New Class’, a “sector of post-industrial societies [that] tends to be liberal on cultural issues, university educated, and drawn from relatively younger age cohorts” and who identified with Europe/world rather than nation or locale[ix].
This ‘New Class’ were the ‘organic intellectuals’[x] of cosmopolitan national networks who had, by the early 1970s, entered the mainstream media and educational institutions and were promoting the destruction and remaking of Western culture via anti-nationalism, anti-traditionalism, liberal progressivism, and non-European immigration.
Meanwhile, other issues were developing in the Middle East which would essentially affect the ethnic character of Europe for decades to come.
Middle-East Conflict and UN Resolution 242
In the Arab world, movements towards a Pan-Arabism and a re-politicization of Islam, a Pan-Islamism, had been brewing for decades, grounded in Muslim Brotherhood ideology and its offshoots, as well as the shared oppositional stance of Arabs towards the creation of Israel (1948). In May 1967, while the New Class was rising and convulsing in the West, President Nasser of Egypt was mobilizing army units in the Sinai and closing Israel’s connection, the Gulf of Aqaba, to the Indian Ocean. This initiated what came to be known as the Six Day War.
As a response to the Western support of Israel in this war, particularly by the United States and Britain, and knowing their reliance on Arab oil, the Arab states imposed an oil embargo against them (June–September, 1967). At the Oil Ministers Conference in Baghdad (June 9-18), a Resolution was passed by several Arab countries that held that Arab oil shall be denied to and shall not be allowed to reach directly or indirectly countries committing aggression or participating in aggression on sovereignty of any Arab state or its territories or its territorial waters, particularly the Gulf of Aqaba [xi].
However, this embargo had limited effect on the US or Europe as it was disorganised and ended with the Khartoum Resolution.
In the aftermath of the Six Day War, the UN adopted Security Council Resolution 242 (November 1967), which states that “a just and lasting peace in the Middle East” should include the “[w]ithdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict” and the “[t]ermination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force”.
In January 1968, the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPEC) was established by Kuwait, Libya, and Saudi Arabia and aimed at separating politics from the production and sale of oil. Then, in 1973, another war broke out in the Middle East, which was a crucial moment for Europe: the Yom Kippur War. The Arab world had become increasingly incensed by what they saw as the occupation of Arab territories by Israel and the pro-Israeli stance of the United States. On October 6th Egypt (under President Anwar Sadat), Iraq, and Syria, with the help of Jordan, Libya, and other Arab states, launched an attack on Israel. Israel mobilised and pushed back, taking part of the west bank of the Suez Canal. In an effort to effect Western policies on the Middle-East conflict, a second oil embargo was imposed on pro-Israel countries, particularly the U.S., by OAPEC (decided on Oct. 17th) and this time it was effective.
1973 Oil Embargo and the Euro-Arab Dialogue
America, due to their emergency aid ($2.2 billion), as well as the supply of weapons and other provisions to Israel during the Yom Kippur War, was the main target for the oil embargo, but, in comparison to Europe, they were largely unaffected as they had their own oil supplies. Out of the members of the EEC at that time (Nine) only Holland was completely embargoed; Britain and France were not directly targeted (they had prevented the US from using their airspace to resupply Israel), and the other six, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Denmark, and Ireland were subject to “phased production of 5 per cent a month”[xii].
As Rotterdam[xiii] was the biggest port in Europe and was completely cut-off, the embargo “created economic turmoil in Europe including Britain”. Britain was reliant on Arab oil – it had imported 624 million pounds of oil from the Middle East in 1970 – and it was affected by the “overall cut” in Arab oil production, which amounted to 25% by November 1973, and was also affected by the rise in oil prices, which had increased by 470% in 1973 to over $11 a barrel[xiv].
On 28 November 1973 Arab heads of state issued the Arab Declaration of Algiers, which defined their parameters for cooperating with the EEC including the “demand that the countries of Western Europe cease their military and economic support of Israel”. This Declaration prompted French President of the European Commission, Georges Pompidou, to call for an EEC Summit meeting in Copenhagen (15 December 1973) to discuss the Middle-East crisis. Pompidou and West German Chancellor, Willy Brandt[xv], sponsored this meeting. Four Arab Foreign Ministers attended, laid out their political objectives and suggested various strategies, including the offer of a relationship between the two regions based on “mutually beneficial cooperation”[xvi].
In Brussels, 4 March 1974, eight of the Nine Foreign Ministers (excluding Britain) decided to begin a Dialogue, known as the Euro-Arab Dialogue (EAD), with the Arab League states in an effort to protect industrial interests that relied on energy resources coming from the Middle East. The EAD established “a multilateral economic forum whose aim was to strengthen economic links and co-operation between the two regions” (the Nine of the EEC and the twenty Arab League states) and this cooperation included “a wide number of economic, financial, technical, and cultural fields”[xvii]. The EEC perceived that such cooperation would bring about economic benefits for Europe from “expanded oil, commercial, and industrial markets”, which included the “massive sales of arms, as well as of industrial and nuclear equipment”[xviii]. It was also a way for Europeans to reinforce their collective links so to protect against Arab discrimination and future embargoes.
Britain initially had reservations about joining the EAD as they were concerned what impact it would have on British interests, on Israeli and Arab relations, and on American attitudes and its peace brokering in the Middle East. The Americans were also initially adamant that Britain not join the EAD and were extremely upset (threatening) with the EEC for their self-assertion and decision to enter into dialogue with the Arabs. However, on March 28, after the oil embargo had ended (17 March 1974), and after several conversations and meetings, US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger informed the British that the Americans understood the need for good relations between the Europeans, British, and Arabs and finally approved British involvement with the EAD. At the European Ministerial Summit in Luxembourg, April 2nd, 1974, Britain joined the EAD.
The European Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation (PAEAC)
The European Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation (PAEAC) was founded by the Nine with the aim of improving European integration by initiating a common foreign policy between the member states and “improv[ing] political, cultural, and economic cooperation between Europe and the Arab world”, and it met biannually. On 7-8 June 1975 PAEAC met at Strasbourg. At this meeting recognition of the “historical contribution of Arab culture to European development” and “the contribution that the European countries can still expect from Arab culture, notably in the area of human values” were discussed. Also deliberated was the provision of the “means,” created by the Arab countries, to enable Arab immigrants in Europe “to participate in Arab cultural and religious life” in their respective host countries, and included the propagation of Islam and the Arab culture throughout Europe, which was a priority of the EEC[xix].
To a large extent these discussions were stimulated by a study on the conditions of Euro-Arab cooperation submitted to the economic commission of the PAEAC by Belgian member, Tilj DeClercq. He wrote that:
A medium and long term policy must henceforth be formulated in order to bring about economic cooperation through a combination of Arab manpower reserves and raw materials, and European technology and ‘management’.This promoted Arab-Muslim immigration into Europe. He also suggested that economic integration was not possible until political support for Arabs in the Middle East was clarified:
genuine political will must be at the base of the concrete plans for cooperation and must be demonstrated on three levels: the national level; the level of the continent; and at world level [xx].DeClerq’s proposals were accepted by PAEAC and integrated into their resolutions, which included calls “for news coverage more favourable to Arab causes, as well as special conditions for Arab immigrants” such as the equal rights of Arab immigrant workers in Europe to that of national citizens. The resolutions were published in July 1975 in Eurabia, a journal first published in 1970 by the European Committee for Coordination of Friendship Associations with the Arab World. This journal outlined an essential aim of the Euro-Arab Dialogue: a “continent-wide foreign policy unity, so as to become a global alternative to American power”. The EAD, according to Eurabia, had to express “a joint political will” and European authorities had to create “a climate of opinion” that was “favourable to the Arabs”. If Europe was to cooperate with the Arab world then it was necessary for Europe to
reaffirm their confidence in the Euro-Arab friendship and their respect for the millennial contribution of the Arabs to world civilization [xxi].
Euro-Arab Cultural Cooperation: Islamization of Europe
Two days after the PAEAC meeting in Strasbourg, the Arabs and Europeans of the EAD met in Cairo (June 10-14, 1975). A Joint Memorandum was issued that outlined their principles and aims:
The Euro-Arab Dialogue is the fruit of a common political desire [and] is inspired by neighboring ties and a common cultural heritage, as well as by their complementary and convergent interests.It listed several areas of cultural cooperation that “should embrace education, the arts, science, and information” and also cooperation with the Arab workforce in Europe, involving the equal treatment of immigrants “in three areas: employment; working and living conditions; and social security benefits”[xxii].
The Communique of the EAD General Committee (GC, the central body of EAD) meeting in Tunis, February 1977, involved the “transfer of technology, commercial cooperation (specifically an Arab request for the establishment of a ‘Euro-Arab Trade Cooperation Center’), the protection and encouragement of investment, a number of industrial contracts, cultural cooperation, and finally, the living and working conditions of migrant workers”[xxiii].
In other words, "cultural cooperation" involved the Arabization and Islamization of European culture and the encouragement, initiated by the Arab League and abided by the Europeans, of these immigrants to retain their cultural traditions in their new countries of residence. Included in this was discussion on the establishment of a program for strengthening Euro-Arab cooperation in the media and information spheres.
Such cultural inroads were advocated by a Euro-Arab Seminar on “Means and Forms of Cooperation for the Diffusion in Europe of the Knowledge of Arabic Language and Literary Civilization” that was held at the University of Venice from March 28 to 30, 1977. This Seminar proposed a common culture for the “north and south shores of the Mediterranean” and offered nineteen recommendations [xxiv] for the formation of Euro-Arab Cultural Centers in European capitals for the diffusion of Arab culture and language within Europe. Both the cultural and migratory inroads into Europe from the Arab world were further confirmed at the fourth meeting of the GC in Damascus, 9-11 December 1978, which produced the Damascus Declaration. This Declaration effectively provided Arab countries the right to transfer their culture, customs, and people into Europe[xxv].
Venice Declaration, Maastricht Treaty, and the European Union
In Italy, on 30 September 1979, a symposium brought together the United Nations, the European Communities, the League of Arab States, and OPEC. The Chairman of OPEC, Mana Ben Saeed Al-Otaiba, declared threateningly that
Our cooperation should...be based on moral educational principles so that Europe should play its part in putting an end to injustice and restoring the people of Palestine to their rights. Unless these aims are adhered to, it will be difficult for Europe to have her petroleum supplies guaranteed [xxvi].In June 1980, the EEC issued the Declaration of Venice, which repeated that Israel must withdraw to 1949 lines and that the Israeli occupation of territories was preventing the Middle East peace process.
In the mid to late 1980s, and into the 1990s, European integration and a common European foreign policy developed further. In 1986 the Single European Act (SEA, 1986) was adopted, and in 1991 the Maastricht Treaty was signed and introduced Citizenship of the European Union, which has been enforced since December 1st, 2009 via an amended (2007) Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (see Part II, article 20). The Maastricht Treaty also emphasised the collective definition and application of a “common policy covering all areas of foreign relations and security” for the EU and its members states.
The establishment of the European Union (EU) came about with the enforcement of the Maastricht Treaty in 1993. In 1995, the European Institute for Research on Mediterranean and Euro-Arab Co-operation (MEDEA) was established in Brussels with the aim of enhancing cooperation and development in the Mediterranean basin and improving Euro-Arab relations. At the first conference in Barcelona, 27-28 November 1995, which was attended by 15 EU members and 12 non-members, MEDEA developed a comprehensive Euro-Mediterranean Partnership (EUROMED/Barcelona Process) that brought together Israel, EU member states, and nine Arab states.
The Barcelona Declaration sought to transform the Mediterranean basin into a zone of cooperation, dialogue, and exchange, and has aimed at guaranteeing “peace, stability and growth in the Mediterranean Partner Countries,” a plan that has been further implemented by the Final Declaration of the EUROMED Forum, 27-28 October 1998. In fact, the advisory group to Romano Prodi has stated that within the next half century the two parts of the Euro-Mediterranean (European and African/Arab) area would have integrated their day-to-day life.
Funding of the Euro-Arab Partnerships
The MEDA program — Mediterranean Development Assistance — which developed out of the Barcelona Declaration, has been the main financial instrument of the European Union for the enactment of the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership (EUROMED). Between 1995 and 1999 MEDA allocated €4.685 billion of tax-payers monies for “financial cooperation between the EU and its Mediterranean partners” and this was increased to €5.35 billion between 2000 and 2006. In 2003 the European Commission signed Financing Agreements for three MEDA-funded cooperation programs, which totalled €32 million ($40 million). In April 2003, the European Investment Bank (EIB) approved €1.5 billion for investment in Arab countries. A few months later, in November 2003, EIB had given out more than €1.8 billion of new loans and also approved €1.8 billion of new investment operations in the Muslim world[xxvii].
About 90 percent of these MEDA resources have benefitted the Mediterranean partners of Europe, which include Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey, and the Palestinian Authority.
Twenty-First Century Euro-Arab Relations and European Integration
In Brussels, June 2002, the Euro-Arab Parliamentary Dialogue aimed to create a foundation to develop joint Euro-Arab cultural and educational programs. In October 2003 Romano Prodi, the president of the European Commission, saidthat the foundation would “give concrete form to the principle of co-ownership, of the feeling of belonging”. This "feeling of belonging" was explained in the same month by a High-Level Advisory Meeting in Brussels, which issued a report titled Dialogue Between Peoples and Cultures in the Euro-Mediterranean Area and stated that “feelings of belonging now work as intersecting circles, and no longer as concentric or juxtaposed circles” – it is no longer about people defining “themselves by opposition to others”. According to this report, individuals do not first and foremost belong to an ethnicity, country, or region, but individuals act as individuals — “each person for themself” — and, next, act as world citizens.
In Naples, on 2-3 December 2003, the Sixth Meeting of Euro-Mediterranean Ministers of Foreign Affairs met as part of the Barcelona Process and recommended the formation of a Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly, a Euro-Mediterranean Bank for Euro-Mediterranean Investment, and a Euro-Mediterranean Foundation for the Dialogue of Cultures. In addition, this meeting also stressed the importance of Ministers accepting the following ongoing programs: Euromed Heritage, Euromed Audio-Visual, Euromed Youth, and Euromed Platform Youth.
In Dublin in 2004, May 5-6, EUROMED founded the Anna Lindh Foundation for the Dialogue of Cultures, which has since established HQ in Alexandria, Egypt. It was named after the Social Democratic Party member Anna Lindh, who was murdered in 2002. In 2008 the same original partners of EUROMED established the Union for the Mediterranean, which is based on the Barcelona Process (1995) and encourages “economic integration and democratic reform across 16 neighbours to the EU’s south in North Africa and the Middle East”. At the international level, it seeks to “advance in the wider world” the following principles that define its “own creation”:
democracy, the rule of law, the universality and indivisibility of human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for human dignity, the principles of equality and solidarity, and respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter and international law (seehere and here).
Euro-Mediterranean Union, Eurafrica, and Eurabia
The European push for a Union of the Mediterranean continues to work towards the early Twentieth century notion of Eurafrica. In 2007, French President Nicolas Sarkozy spoke in Dakar and suggested that Eurafrica still remained the destiny of the two continents:
What France wants to do with Africa is co-development...shared development...a joint strategy within the globalisation process...a jointly negotiated policy on immigration...What France wants to do with Africa is to prepare the advent of Eurafrique, this great common destiny which awaits Europe and Africa.On 17 December 2008, Sarkozy gave an impassioned speech on diversity at the École Polytechnique de Paliseau, suggesting that “diversity should be set in the stone of the constitution” and advocated métissage, which denotes “the mixing of racial or ethnic groups[xxviii]. He said that he wanted more ethnic diversity in the media, in politics, and in the elite schools and aimed to “end the stranglehold of France's white, monocultural elite”.
In a 2011 speech on Europe in Toulon (1st December) he stated his goals:
a capitalism of production, regulated globalization, regulated finance, sustainable development, a new role for the state in the economy and a new European and global governance.Just recently, in August 2014, the European Commission issued a press releasestating the launch of a Pan-African Programme that will fund activities totalling €415 million and “offer new possibilities for the EU and Africa to work together”. This Programme will continue until 2017 and “will contribute to increased mobility within the continent as well as between Europe and Africa”, movements that involve student exchange programmes as well as “labour mobility”.
British Labour member David Miliband gave a speech in 2007 to the College of Europe, Bruges in Amsterdam, and spoke of the enlargement of Europe which entailed a “version of the European Free Trade Association that could gradually bring the countries of the Maghreb, 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". Meanwhile, in 2009, David Cameron, who has been advised byTariq Ramadan, said to Muslims in Britain that there are too many White Christians in Britain:
It's not enough, as I've said many times, for a party like the Conservatives to open the door, and say 'come on in,' if all you see is a sea of white Christian faces. You need to see people from your own communities getting to the top of the army, getting to the top of the legal profession, getting to the top of business and, yes, getting to the top of the Conservative party and politics too.Cameron has also declared his vision for the capital of Britain, London: a world capital of Islamic finance.
Euro-Mediterranean Integration Schemes are European Union
While Europe expanded its markets and transferred its technology to the Arab world and received a guarantee of oil supplies, it received Arab manpower through large-scale immigration from Muslim countries, immigrants who were perceived as builders of the future Eurabia. With the support of the European elites and the legal system millions of these immigrants have come to Europe with no intention of integrating; bringing their cultural norms and habits with them they have rejected the secular liberal culture of Europe in favour of their own and have utilised the legal system to protect their interests, all of which has created a volatile situation of social fragmentation and separatism within Europe.
Although all EU heads of state have endorsed the Euro-Arab policies, most of the European masses have remained unaware that such agreements and procedures have been made. Not only have indigenous Europeans been deceived by their own leaders, the ideologies of cultural relativism and political correctness have also been imposed upon them through the political, educational, and media systems as well as through cultural activities.
Educational and media institutions have also distorted the history of European civilization in line with the social and political goals of the EAD; it is claimed that the Greek scientific heritage of Europe was transmitted to Europeans from the Arab-Muslim world. This view of history ignores the fact that Greek civilization was taught in the Byzantine Empire and in Italy and when Jihad arrived in the 11th century these European scholars fled to Western Europe where they then transmitted their knowledge in Latin. The false portrayal of European history is prevalent in European textbooks.
What began as an elite Pan-European socialist movement initiated by Kalergi, a movement that focused on the economic and political union of Europe, the creation of a hybridized common European culture, the establishment of a Euro-Mediterranean geopolitical bloc united with both the African continent and parts of the Muslim Middle East, and the construction of a cosmopolitan patriotism, today has become a multicultural and multiracial Eurocrat project, a Euro-Mediterranean Union that is anti-European and based on multicultural immigrant ideologies and a Neoconservative-style global monoculture.
Multiculturalism is cast by Leftist socialists as the exemplary model for all the world’s nations to conform to, whether they like it or not (forced to be “free”), and assimilation is portrayed by neoconservatives as the model to enforce upon the indigenous and immigrant populations. Both models are utilised by capitalists to transform cultures into neoliberal societies devoid of racial, ethnic, or ancestral identifications and to integrate them into a world economic market run by wealthy elites. They are bourgeois "humanists" and economic individualists that masquerade as the supreme moral force of Western Civilization.
This social engineering based on a political ideology, demographic transformation, and a universalising philosophical and economic idealism, and which seeks to overcome human nature, nationalities, and ethnic identities, is for the sake of an abstract conception of a future utopia. By the end of the 20th century, utopia was a mainstream political ideology and sought to bring an “American-style democratic capitalism – the final form of human government” to all the world[xxix].
The imposition of global corporate capitalism and all it entails under the guise of humanitarian development and universal progress, requires the violent intervention of the American-led West into other countries that are considered "backward" and "unfree", including Europe. This intervention and the destruction of existing traditional cultures — a global democratic revolution — is considered justified for it makes possible the room for the construction of modern, democratic, capitalist, and standardised systems of American-style Western living based on an idealised notion of a future federation of humanity in perpetual peace.
“Creative destruction is our middle name” says neoconservative foreign policy analyst, Michael Ledeen. He further writes:
We tear down the old order every day, from business to science, literature, art, architecture, and cinema to politics and the law. Our enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and creativity, which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be) and shames them for their inability to keep pace. Seeing America undo traditional societies, they fear us, for they do not wish to be undone. They cannot feel secure so long as we are there, for our very existence — our existence, not our politics — threatens their legitimacy. They must attack us in order to survive, just as we must destroy them to advance our historic mission[xxx].In the context of an ideal future world government and single race, to deny and dilute White European identity is considered necessary, progressive, and humanistic. Meanwhile Eurosceptic, ethnonationalist, and anti-cosmopolitan opposition continues, albeit alongside non-European immigrant nationalisms demanding self-determination in Europe (e.g. Turkish Muslims in Germany).
Mass-immigration and multiculturalism are the most recent strategies of the elite that link socialist and progressive ideas towards Euro-Mediterranean integration and the future aim of a World Federation in perpetual peace. Euro-Mediterranean aspirations, especially the strategy of massive immigration from the Third World into Western Europe and its accompanying multicultural dogma, is plainly and simply an unethical practice that amounts to the cultural death and eventual genocide of European peoples.
[i] Peo Hansen and Stefan Jonsson, “Bringing Africa as a ‘Dowry to Europe’,” Interventions: International Journal of Postcolonial Studies 13, no.3 (2011) : 452.
[ii] Ibid, 451.
[iii] There were widespread concerns about massive population growth stimulated by such works as An Essay on the Principle of Population (1798-1825, six editions) by Thomas Malthus, Our Plundered Planet (1948) by Fairfield Osborn, and Road to Survival (1948) by William Vogt, which influenced the seminal book, The Population Bomb (1968) by Paul Ehrlich. There was also a feverish embrace of planned parenthood, the creation of Zero Population Growth Inc., and the rise of environmental movements that had merged with feminism.
[iv] Peo Hansen and Stefan Jonsson, Eurafrica: The Untold History of European Integration and Colonialism, (London; New York: Bloosmbury Publishing Plc, 2014), 123
[v] Hansen, “Bringing Africa,” 454-455.
[vi] Historical Archives of the European Union (HAEU), (1956-58) EN-Emile Noёl, EN.01-Activitiés européenes avant 1958; EN.01-04.01, Discours de Guy Mollet 1956-58, Florence, European University Institute, <http://archives.eui.eu/en/fonds/110738?item=EN.01-04.01> (November 2014).
[vii] However, as mentioned in Part I, Kalergi did envision a mixed race of the future.
[viii] Cited by Daniel C. Villanueva, “Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi’s Pan-Europa as the Elusive ‘Object of Longing’,” Rocky Mountain Review of Language and Literature 59, no.2 (2005) : 74, 75.
[ix] Kaufmann, “A Comparative-Historical Perspective,” 381-382.
[x] Coined by Gramsci; they were the American New Left and the European 68ers
[xi] U.S. Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964-1968, Vol. XXXIV: American Republics, (Washington, DC: GPO, 1986), Doc. 232.
[xii] David Allen, “The Euro-Arab Dialogue,” Journal of Common Market Studies 16, no.4 (1977) : 323; see also Ye’or, Eurabia, 326.
[xiii] Rotterdam is the largest port in Europe and one of the largest ports in the world and also happens to be considered the Islamic capital of Europe. See here.
[xiv] Muhamad Hasrul Zakariah, “The Euro-Arab Dialogue 1973-1978: Britain Reinsurance Policy in the Middle-East Conflict,” European Review of History 20, no.1 (5 March 2013) : 107-108.
[xv] Willy Brandt became the head of the Socialist International in 1979, at a time when this organisation had become not just anti-colonialist and anti-nationalist, but also anti-Israeli and anti-American.
[xvi] Zakariah, “The Euro-Arab Dialogue,” 96
[xvii] Ibid, 95, 97.
[xviii] Bat Ye’or, Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis, (Maryland/Plymouth: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2005/2011), 70
[xix] Ibid, 54, 66.
[xx] Cited in ibid, 64.
[xxi] Ibid, 63-65.
[xxii] Ibid, 67-68.
[xxiii] Allen, “The Euro-Arab Dialogue,” 336.
[xxiv] See Derek Hopwood, ed., Euro-Arab Dialogue: The Relations Between the Two Cultures. Acts of the Hamburg Symposium April 11th to 15th 1983. (London: Croom Helm, 1983), 317-23.
[xxv] Ye’or, Eurabia, 91-95.
[xxvi] Cited in Ibid, 81-82.
[xxvii] Ibid, 108, 246, 201-202.
[xxviii] Yvan Gastaut, "The ‘Immigration Question’: Mainspring of Sarkozy's Presidency," Contemporary French & Francophone Studies 16, no. 3 (June 2012): 341.
[xxix] John Gray, Black Mass: How Religion Led the World into Crisis (Anchor Canada, 2008), 29
[xxx] Michael A. Leeden, The War Against the Terror Masters: Why It Happened. Where We Are Now. How’ll We Win, (New York: Macmillan, 2003/2007), 212-213.
(Source: eurocanadian.ca)
No hay comentarios.:
Publicar un comentario