The Eurabia Code, Part 2: A Planned Sell-Out by the EU
From the desk of Fjordman on Thu, 2006-10-05 14:33
MEDEA (the European Institute for Research on Mediterranean and Euro-Arab Cooperation), supported by the European Commission, is one of the key components of the Euro-Arab dialogue. On its own webpage, it states that:
“The Euro-Arab Dialogue as a forum shared by the European Community and the League of Arab States arose out of a French initiative and was launched at the European Council in Copenhagen in December 1973, shortly after the ‘October War’ and the oil embargo. As the Europeans saw it, it was to be a forum to discuss economic affairs, whereas the Arab side saw it rather as one to discuss political affairs.
MEDEA Institute wishes to be a resource and a reference point for people wanting to engage in the Euro-Mediterranean dialogue. Via its meetings and talks the Institute seeks to create exchanges between political, economic, and diplomatic players, experts, journalists, academics and others.”
As Bat Ye’or points out, while most of the workings of Eurabia are hidden from the public view, sometimes we can catch glimpses of it if we know what to look for. If you search the archives of the MEDEA website and other sources and read the documents carefully, the information is there. Even more material exists on paper, both in French and in English. I argue, as does Bat Ye’or, that there are sufficient amounts of information available to validate the thesis of Eurabia.
One of the documents Bat Ye’or was kind enough to send me (which she mentions in her French book about Eurabia but not in her English book) is the Common Strategy of the European Council – Vision of the EU for the Mediterranean Region, from June 19th 2000.
It includes many recommendations, such as:
“to elaborate partnership-building measures, notably by promoting regular consultations and exchanges of information with its Mediterranean partners, support the interconnection of infrastructure between Mediterranean partners, and between them and the EU, take all necessary measures to facilitate and encourage the involvement of civil society as well as the further development of human exchanges between the EU and the Mediterranean partners. NGOs will be encouraged to participate in cooperation at bilateral and regional levels. Particular attention will be paid to the media and universities.” [my emphasis]
It also includes the goal of assisting the Arab partners with “the process of achieving free trade with the EU.” This may be less innocent than it sounds, as I will come back to later. The Strategy also wants to “pursue, in order to fight intolerance, racism and xenophobia, the dialogue between cultures and civilisations.” Notice that this statement preceded both the start of the second Palestinian intifada as well as the terror attacks of September 11th 2001. It was thus part of an ongoing process, rather than a response to any particular international incident.
One point in the document is particularly interesting. The EU wanted to “promote the identification of correspondences between legal systems of different inspirations in order to resolve civil law problems relating to individuals: laws of succession and family law, including divorce.”
In plain English, it is difficult to see this bureaucratic obfuscation as anything other than an indicator that the EU countries will be lenient, adjusting their secular legislation to the sharia requirements of Muslim immigrants in family matters.
In another document from December 2003, which is available online, Javier Solana, the Secretary General of the Council of the European Union, Romano Prodi, President of the European Commission and Chris Patten, member of the European Commission, have signed a plan for “Strengthening the EU’s Partnership with the Arab World.” This includes the creation of a free trade area, but also plans to
“invigorate cultural/religious/civilisation and media dialogue using existing or planned instruments, including the planned Euro-Mediterranean Foundation for the Dialogue of Cultures and Civilisations.
Arab immigrants make a substantial contribution to the development of Europe. [my emphasis] The EU is firmly committed to fight all manifestations of racism and discrimination in all its forms. [What constitutes discrimination? Secular laws?] Full respect for the rights of immigrants in Europe is a consistent policy throughout Europe. Its implementation should be improved further and co-operation in the framework of existing agreements should be enhanced to take into account the concerns of Arab partners.”
Super-Eurocrat Romano Prodi wants more cooperation with Arab countries. He talks about a free trade zone with the Arab world, but this implies that Arab countries would enjoy access to the four freedoms of the EU’s inner market, which includes the free movement of people across national borders. This fact, the potentially massive implications of establishing an “inner market” with an Arab world with a booming population growth, is virtually NEVER debated or even mentioned in European media. Yet it could mean the end of Europe as we once knew it.
Another statement from the “Sixth Euro-Med Ministerial Conference: reinforcing and bringing the Partnership forward” in Brussels, 28 November 2003, makes the intention of this internal Euro-Mediterranean market:
“This initiative offers the EU’s neighbouring partners, in exchange for tangible political and economic reforms, 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 [my emphasis]. Ministers are also expected to back the Commission’s proposal to set up a Euro-Mediterranean Foundation for the Dialogue of Cultures, a Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly.”
In June 2006, then newly elected Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi stated that: “It’s time to look south and relaunch a new policy of cooperation for the Mediterranean.” Prodi was outlining a joint Italian-Spanish initiative which sought to provide countries facing the Mediterranean with “different” political solutions from those offered in the Euro-Mediterranean partnership. The prime minister then explained that the Barcelona Process – whose best known aspect is the creation of a free trade zone by 2010 – was no longer sufficient and a new different approach was needed. “The countries on the southern shores of the Mediterranean expect that from us” he added.
Notice how Prodi, whom Bat Ye’or has identified as a particularly passionate Eurabian, referred to what the Arabs expected from European leaders. He failed to say whether or not there was great excitement among Europeans over the prospect of an even freer flow of migrants from Arab countries and Turkey, which is what will result from this “Euro-Mediterranean free trade zone.”
During the Euro-Mediterranean mid-term Meeting of Ministers of Foreign Affairs in Dublin in May 2004, the participants declared that:
“Work is now in progress to develop an agreed view on relations with the area which extends from Mauritania to Iran – the Mediterranean and the Middle East. The [European] Union has proposed to include Mediterranean partners in the European Neighbourhood Policy.
The EU can offer a more intensive political dialogue and greater access to EU programmes and policies, including their gradual participation in the four freedoms particularly the Single Market, as well as reinforced co-operation on justice and home affairs.”
Again, exactly what does “co-operation on justice and home affairs” with Egypt, Syria and Algeria mean? I don’t know, but I’m not sure whether I will like the answer.
The Barcelona declaration from 1995 encouraged “contacts between parliamentarians” and invited the European Parliament, with other Parliaments, to launch “the Euro-Mediterranean parliamentary dialogue.” In March 2004, this was converted into a specific institution called The Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly, EMPA [pdf]. During the Euro-Mediterranean Ministerial Conference in Crete in May 2003, the Ministers included a provision which envisaged the consultative role the Parliamentary Assembly will play within the framework of the Barcelona process.
EU Commissioner Chris Patten has reiterated the European Commission’s readiness to co-operate fully with the Assembly, giving the Assembly the right to comment on any subject of interest to the Euro-Arab Dialogue.
The Assembly consists of 120 members from EU countries, both members of national parliaments and of the European Parliament, and an equal number of representatives from the Parliaments of the Mediterranean partner countries.
Like most Europeans, I hadn’t even heard about this institution before coming across it during an Internet search. However, it is apparently going to influence the future of my entire continent. This set-up leaves me with some questions. When we know that these “Mediterranean partner countries” include non-democratic Arab countries such as Syria, isn’t it disturbing that representatives from these countries should participate in a permanent institution with consultative powers over the internal affairs of the European Union? Especially when we know that our own, democratically elected national parliaments have already been reduced to the status of “consultation” with unelected federal EU lawmakers in Brussels?
The Algiers Declaration for a Shared Vision of the Future was made after a Congress held in Algeria in February 2006. The document states that: “It is essential to create a Euro-Mediterranean entity founded on Universal Values” and that “It is crucial to positively emphasise all common cultural heritage, even if marginalised or forgotten.” A Common Action Plan draws up a large number of recommendations on how to achieve this new Euro-Mediterranean entity. Among these recommendations are:
* Adapt existing organisations and the contents of media to the objectives of the North- South dialogue, and set up a Euro-Mediterranean journalism centre;
* Set up a network jointly managed by the Mediterranean partners in order to develop a harmonised education system [A “harmonized education system” between the Arab world and Europe? What does that include? Do I want to know? Will they tell us before it is a fait accompli?];
* Facilitate the transfer of know-how between the EU countries and the Mediterranean partner nations and “encourage the circulation of individuals”;
* Prepare action and arguments in support of facilitating the mobility of individuals, especially of students, intellectuals, artists, businessmen “and all conveyors of dialogue”;
* Set up Ministries responsible for Mediterranean affairs in countries of the North and of the South [Europe and the Arab world, in Eurocrat newspeak], in order to benefit from a better management of Mediterranean policy;
* Train teachers and exchange students between the North and the South and set up a network of Euro-Mediterranean Youth clubs;
* Establish a “civil watchdog” anti-defamation observatory (with an Internet tool and a legal help network), to cope with racist remarks and the propagation of hate towards people of different religion, nationality or ethnic background.
These agreements, completely rewriting European history books to make them more Islam-friendly, and gradually silencing “Islamophobia” as racism, are being implemented even now.
Walter Schwimmer, the Austrian diplomat and Secretary General of the Council of Europe from 1999 to 2004, told foreign ministers at the Islamic conference in Istanbul (June 15th 2004) that the Islamic component is an integral part of Europe’s diversity. He reaffirmed the commitment of the Council of Europe to work against Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and other forms of intolerance.
The Council was also actively involved in the co-organisation of a Conference on the Image of Arab-Islamic culture in European history textbooks, which took place in Cairo in December 2004. The event was held within the framework of the Euro-Arab Dialogue “Learning to Live together.” The aim of the conference was to examine negative stereotyping in the image of Arab-Islamic culture presented in existing history textbooks, and to discuss ways to overcome this stereotyping.
In the European Parliament, the German Christian Democrat Hans-Gert Pöttering stated that school textbooks should be reviewed for intolerant depictions of Islam by experts overseen by the European Union and Islamic leaders. He said textbooks should be checked to ensure they promoted European values without propagating religious stereotypes or prejudice. He also suggested that the EU could co-operate with the 56-nation Organisation of the Islamic Conference to create a textbook review committee.
In June 2005 in Rabat, Morocco, a conference was held on “Fostering Dialogue among Cultures and Civilizations.” The Conference was jointly organized by UNESCO, the Islamic Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (ISESCO), the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the Arab League Educational, Cultural and Scientific Organization (ALECSO), the Danish Centre for Culture and Development (DCCD) and the Anna Lindh Euro-Mediterranean Foundation for the Dialogue between Cultures (Alexandria, Egypt).
Notice that this was months before the Danish Muhammad cartoons created havoc. It was not a reaction to this issue; rather it was a part of a sustained, ongoing process to promote the Arabic-Islamic culture in Europe.
Among the recommendations that were raised by Mr. Olaf Gerlach Hansen, Director General of the DCCD: “We are interested in new actions in the media, in culture and in education.” These proposals include:
* Concrete initiatives to develop intercultural competencies in the training of new generations of journalists;
* Concrete initiatives for links and exchanges between journalists, editors, media-institutions, which encourage intercultural co-operation;
* Concrete initiatives for curriculum development through new educational materials and revision of existing textbooks.
Although not stated directly, one may reasonably assume that among the “negative stereotypes” to be removed from the textbooks used to teach history to European schoolchildren are any and all references to the 1300 years of continuous Jihad warfare against Europe. These recommendations were accepted and incorporated into The Rabat Commitment.
According to Serge Trifkovic, “The present technological, cultural and financial strength of Europe is a façade that conceals a deep underlying moral and demographic weakness. The symptoms of the malaise are apparent in the unprecedented demographic collapse and in the loss of a sense of place and history that go hand-in-hand with the expansion of the European Union. The emerging transnational hyper-state is actively indoctrinating its subject-population into believing and accepting that the demographic shift in favor of Muslim aliens is actually a blessing.”
He points out specifically the EU Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation N° 1162 (19 September 1991) on “the contribution of the Islamic civilization to European culture.” A decade later, in its General policy recommendation n° 5: “Combating intolerance and discrimination against Muslims,” the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance emphasized “Islam’s positive contribution to the continuing development of European societies, of which it is an integral part.” It expressed strong regret “that Islam is sometimes portrayed inaccurately [as] a threat.”
The ECRI called on the EU member states to adopt measures that would effectively outlaw any serious debate about Islam and introduce pro-Muslim “affirmative action.” European countries should:
* modify curricula to prevent “distorted interpretations of religious and cultural history” and “portrayal of Islam on perceptions of hostility and menace”;
* encourage debate in the media on the image which they convey of Islam and on their responsibility to avoid perpetuating prejudice and bias.
Trifkovic says “Cynically defeatist, self-absorbed and unaccountable to anyone but their own corrupt class, the Eurocrats are just as bad as jihad’s fellow-travelers; they are its active abettors and facilitators.”
Eurabians want to create a unity of the Mediterranean region. This desire is strikingly similar to the goals of some Islamic organizations. The Muslim Brotherhood, regarded as the most important Islamic movement of the past century, was founded by Hassan al-Banna in 1928, inspired by contemporary European Fascists in addition to Islamic texts. German historian Egon Flaig quotes Banna as saying:
“We want the flag of Islam to fly over those lands again who were lucky enough to be ruled by Islam for a time, and hear the call of the muezzin praise God. Then the light of Islam died out and they returned to disbelief. Andalusia, Sicily, the Balkans, Southern Italy and the Greek islands are all Islamic colonies which have to return to Islam’s embrace. The Mediterranean and the Red Sea have to become internal seas of Islam, as they used to be.”
Patrick Poole describes how discussion of a document called “The Project” so far has been limited to the top-secret world of Western intelligence communities. Only through the work of an intrepid Swiss journalist, Sylvain Besson, has information regarding The Project finally been made public. It was found in a raid of a luxurious villa in Campione, Switzerland on November 7, 2001. The target of the raid was Youssef Nada, who has had active association with the Muslim Brotherhood for more than 50 years.
Included in the documents seized was a 14-page plan written in Arabic and dated December 1, 1982, which outlined a 12-point strategy to “establish an Islamic government on earth” – identified as The Project. According to testimony given to Swiss authorities by Nada, the unsigned document was prepared by “Islamic researchers” associated with the Muslim Brotherhood. It represents a flexible, multi-phased, long-term approach to the “cultural invasion” of the West.
The Project has served for more than two decades as the Muslim Brotherhood “master plan.” Some of its recommendations include:
* Using deception to mask the intended goals of Islamist actions;
* Building extensive social networks of schools, hospitals and charitable organizations;
* Involving ideologically committed Muslims in institutions on all levels in the West, including government, NGOs, private organizations;
* Instrumentally using existing Western institutions until they can be put into service of Islam;
* Instituting alliances with Western “progressive” organizations that share similar goals.
Included among this group of Muslim Brotherhood intellectuals is Youssef al-Qaradhawi, an Egyptian-born, Qatar-based Islamist cleric. Both Sylvain Besson and Scott Burgess provide extensive comparisons between Qaradhawi’s publication, Priorities of the Islamic Movement in the Coming Phase, published in 1990, and The Project. They note the striking similarities in the language used and the plans and methods both documents advocate.
As Patrick Poole says, “What is startling is how effectively the Islamist plan for conquest outlined in The Project has been implemented by Muslims in the West for more than two decades.” Youssef al-Qaradhawi, one of the most influential clerics in Sunni Islam, has predicted that “Islam will return to Europe as a conqueror and victor,” was an important figure during the Muhammad cartoons riots, whipping up anger against Denmark and the West.
According to Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld and Alyssa A. Lappen, “Clearly, the riots in Denmark and throughout the world were not spontaneous, but planned and organized well in advance by Islamist organizations that support the MB, and with funding mostly from Saudi Arabia.”
The current leader of the international Muslim Brotherhood, Mohammad Mahdi Akef, recently issued a new strategy calling on all its member organizations to serve its global agenda of defeating the West. Akef has called the U.S. “a Satan.” “I expect America to collapse soon,” declaring, “I have complete faith that Islam will invade Europe and America.”
Ehrenfeld and Lappen state that the Muslim Brotherhood and its offspring organizations employ the Flexibility strategy: “This strategy calls for a minority group of Muslims to use all ‘legal’ means to infiltrate majority-dominated, non-Muslim secular and religious institutions, starting with its universities. As a result, ‘Islamized’ Muslim and non-Muslim university graduates enter the nation’s workforce, including its government and civil service sectors, where they are poised to subvert law enforcement agencies, intelligence communities, military branches, foreign services, and financial institutions.”
In the Middle East Quarterly, Lorenzo Vidino writes about “The Muslim Brotherhood’s Conquest of Europe.” According to Vidino, “Since the early 1960s, Muslim Brotherhood members and sympathizers have moved to Europe and slowly but steadily established a wide and well-organized network of mosques, charities, and Islamic organizations.”
One of the Muslim Brotherhood’s first pioneers in Germany was Sa’id Ramadan, the personal secretary of Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna. The oil-rich kingdom of Saudi Arabia has granted an influx of money to the powerful Islamic Center of Geneva, Switzerland, run by Sa’id’s son Hani Ramadan, brother of Tariq Ramadan. Hani Ramadan was made infamous by – among other things – a 2002 article in the French daily Le Monde defending the stoning of adulterers to death. Tariq Ramadan, a career “moderate Muslim,” later called for a “moratorium” on stoning.
According to Vidino, “The ultimate irony is that Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna dreamed of spreading Islamism throughout Egypt and the Muslim world. He would have never dreamed that his vision might also become a reality in Europe.”
Former Muslim Dr. Patrick Sookhdeo warns that the Islamicization going on in European cities is not happening by chance. It “is the result of a careful and deliberate strategy by certain Muslim leaders which was planned in 1980 when the Islamic Council of Europe published a book called Muslim Communities in Non-Muslim States.”
The instructions given in the book told Muslims to get together and organize themselves into viable Muslim communities. They should set up mosques, community centres and Islamic schools. At all costs they must avoid being assimilated by the majority, and to resist assimilation must group themselves geographically, forming areas of high Muslim concentration.
Douglas Farah writes about the largely successful efforts by Islamic groups in the West to buy large amounts of real estate, territory that effectively becomes “Muslim” land once it is in the hands of Islamist groups. Some groups are signing agreements to guarantee that they will only sell the land to other Muslims.
The Brotherhood, particularly, is active in investments in properties and businesses across Europe, laying the groundwork for the future network that will be able to react rapidly and with great flexibility in case of another attempted crackdown on the group’s financial structure. Most of the money comes from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. According to Farah, the governments of Europe and the United States continue to allow these groups to flourish and seek for the “moderate” elements that can be embraced as a counter-balance to the “radical” elements.
“We do not have a plan. They do. History shows that those that plan, anticipate and have a coherent strategy usually win. We are not winning.”
The Eurabia Code, Part 1, 1 October 2006
History tells us something different...
Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Sun, 2006-10-08 06:45.
In 1919, following skirmishes over territorial disputes, the Soviets launched an offensive through Belarus, the Ukraine, and Poland. Initially conceived to restore pre-WWI borders, Lenin envisioned the Red Army marching into "Red Berlin," and securing the country in which he had always wanted to install Communism. From there, the Red Army would "liberate" the remainder of Europe from class warfare, until the hammer and sickle flew above Paris.
Given the state of the Germany Army, the sheer number of Communists and Socialists in Germany (esp. Berlin and the other main cities), and the ability of the Western democracies to either defend themselves or intervene - the possibility of Communism washing across continental Europe was at its height in 1919-1921. In 1945, by contrast, the Americans had 12 million active servicemen and a monopoly on atomic weaponry.
However, events consipred and counter-conspired to deny the Soviets entry into Berlin and Lenin his "worker's paradise" - achieved only after his death in the SED's East Germany. Despite demographics, and military, economic, and political power the Soviet offensive was halted...
So too will the advance of Islam into Europe...so long as the average citizen remains strong and unblinded.
Submitted by peter vanderheyden on Fri, 2006-10-06 15:00.
This whole theory of conspiracy of an official inter-governmental body is preposterous. It shouldn’t be commented on, were it not that conspiracy theories are made to inspire fear in peoples’ mind. This Week-end my uncle told me that nine-eleven was a conspiracy of the US government in an effort to create the enemy the neo-cons so desperately needed. Did I know that most of the Jews that worked in the WTC were on holiday that day? He asked. I just smiled and said that this meant that all those Jews, or at least their bosses knew what was going to happen. That would not only make them monsters, it would mean also that the conspiracy was a huge complot, known by thousands of people without anyone ever saying one word to much, nor having a doubt on their conscience for the big massacre they were going to commit. By other words it’s absolutely impossible. He listened to me, and agreed. After all he had no political agenda, other then sensation. I guess the followers of Bat Ye’or won't be that easy to convince, as they certainly have their own hidden agenda: demonizing the Islam in general and the Arabs in particular... (to be continued)
Submitted by MaximillianaMaier on Fri, 2006-10-06 21:21.
Thank you for your enlightening analysis. In your announced next analysis, would you mind to comment on Golda Meir's famous reply to Henry Kissinger who, during the 1973 Sinai talks, accused her of being paranoid for hesitating to grant further concessions to the Palestinians:
"Even paranoids have enemies."
Submitted by panamboy on Fri, 2006-10-06 06:37.
I would like to say, as an American, I find some of the most interesting and informative article written in The Brussels Journal. I feel I have learned a great deal from what I have read here.
That being said; The future that Europe faces is very scary, with the mass movement of populations, crossing all boarders. The greatest fear is what I see in the Muslim immigrations, and how each European country is doing to accommodate them. Giving to them what is with held from their own people. When some comes knocking at the door, they should be humble, Muslims are not. They come with Nationality, Religion, Culture and Laws to live by. They will not assimilate, they want their own laws, education and religion. They come as people who have already conquered the land they will live in. They ask for considerations for their race, religion, culture and their laws; these all to be established above the law of the land. Until the onslaught of the Muslim, European countries took in in immigrants and help them to assimilate into the fabric of society of what ever country they settled. "Beware", not the Muslim who brings Islam who all are married to, and expect you and I to become part of this family. By force if need be.
Remember, They are living within their religion and governments have made us discard ours from our daily lives.
When all is said and done, it will be God who divides the wheat from the chaff.
Immigration or Subjugation?
Submitted by Flanders Fields on Fri, 2006-10-06 10:24.
It is not the immigrants who have to be feared, whether we want them where we live or not. It is the silently operating structures within and without our own governments which manage them into our countries without our consent and for their own nefarious reasons.
Anyone who denies conspiracy theories are not opening their eyes. This is happening in the US and Europe and is against the will of the majority where it occurs. Citizens no longer have control of their governments. The governments manage the citizens. You may ask WHICH conspiracy, but to deny that there in one overall is asinine. The governmental, political, major social institutions, Non Governmental Organizations, mainstream press organizations, major business interests domestically, international businesses, major labor groups and educational leaders are normally of one voice. That voice is generally against the will of the people of the localities where immigration is an issue, until such social, economic and legal pressures are brought to enforce changes in their attitudes.
Forget about your rights as citizens of the country where you reside. You have no power. Unless you are in agreement with them, you are nothing. Cease to be in agreement with them and you are even less. You present no danger to them.
Within a generation or two, we will all be immigrants without a country. We will still be citizens, but only citizens with responsibilities and those rights allowed by the government of whatever region then exists.
Daily Ablution Blog
Submitted by sonomaca on Thu, 2006-10-05 22:02.
had an interesting story on Muslim Brotherhood strategy as applied to UK, posted back in February. Scott Burgess, who runs the blog, makes some interesting Muslim population projections. Anyone wish to discuss whether these forecast are accurate:
UK Muslim Demographics