|
Ladies and gentlemen, good morning;
Bonjour,
Guten
morgen,
Buenos
días,
Buongiorno...
Well, I shall not go on. I just wanted to give you an example of how
many greeting forms you can use to address Europeans whereas one is
sufficient for 57 Arab and Muslim countries: Assalam Alaikum (or
peace upon you).
I shall discuss the dazzling diversity of the Mediterranean peoples
in more detail in just a moment but let's begin by saying that like
a great number of other issues,
all
things Mediterranean can be introduced in terms of good news and bad
news.
It is still early
in the
morning and I am hopeful this event will be a very useful
opportunity for discussion and understanding, so let’s get the bad
news out of the way first.
A quick surf through the ancient and not so ancient history of the
Mediterranean region reveals the type of bad news that may lead
certain students lacking in courage and vision to conclude that all
will be lost one day, and to look to the future with pessimism and
trepidation.
This
gigantic
lake we surround, while poor in marine life because of
overfishing,
is bordered by shores which are very rich in human colour and
innovation. This innovation created, not far from its southern
shores, some of the most momentous achievements in the history of
mankind not simply by giving birth to human civilisation but also by
enriching it over the millennia and spreading it to the four corners
of the ancient world.
For all of us justifiably concerned with the
urgent issue of how to breathe new life and vigour into the
relationship between the European Union and its Southern Arab
neighbors and Turkey, it would be helpful to look at this
relationship from the widest perspective possible, for here too one
cannot understand the present, nor predict the future, let alone
help in formulating an understanding of its trends, unless one
considers the past.
The contemporary Mediterranean, as many of you
will certainly understand, was shaped into the diverse region it is
today not by the passage of time alone, but by the interaction, both
peaceful and bloody, of the peoples of the region almost 3,000 years
ago. For with the advance of civilization and improvement in
agriculture and crafts, there was bountiful opportunity for trade.
There were certainly much earlier activities, but
the Phoenicians turned trade into an art and their ships carried
agricultural produce, pottery, tools and other items from ports
along the Syrian coast to other destinations deeper and deeper into
the Mediterranean. These were essentially the forays of an emerging
trade-based empire, with outposts and colonies created along the
shores of the sea and even further into places like Malta. But it
was a hundred miles to the North, in Sicily, that Carthage,
originally a Phoenician colony bought by the famous queen Elsa in
return for the skin of a bull, that the conflict between East and
West flared.
This was
the beginning of the first Punic War (Punic is
Latin for 'Phoenician') between Rome and Carthage. Initially the
experienced Carthaginian navy prevailed against the
newly-seafaring
Romans,
but Rome soon learned from its mistakes and moved the
the
battle to the walls of Carthage,
which was eventually destroyed,
its
lands
sprinkled
with salt to ensure long-term
barrenness.
Further conflicts led to the seizure
from Carthage by the Romans of important coastal strips and islands
including Sardinia and Corsica. After
three wars
intermittently spanning about 120 years a new age of Mediterranean
civilization passed into the sphere of influence of the first
intercontinental European power, and the
Mediterranean was declared by the Romans
"mare
nostrum"
or "our sea".
By the end of the first century
B.C.,
the Roman Empire effectively controlled the Mediterranean with most
of its trade routes and absorbed the entire Eastern Mediterranean
region,
turning most of Europe and North Africa into a single political and
economic unit.
The rule of Rome was followed by that of Constantinople, its eastern
cousin, which we know as the Byzantine Empire, ruling areas that
stretched all the way to Euphrates river
until Arab
armies conquered the Levant and Egypt between 634 and 641 AD. By
750 AD,
the
Arabs were in control of vast stretches of land larger than those
controlled by the Roman Empire,
including
a Western
expansion into Europe that included Spain, Carthage’s most important
dominion after Tunisia.
Until the beginning of the 11th century, France, the greatest power
in Europe, eyed its Arab/Islamic neighbour across the Pyrenees with
suspicion,
but Al Andalus was no less powerful and the prevalent balance of
power largely kept the peace until the Cordoba Khilafa collapsed in
1009,
and the Taifa
Kings
became vulnerable to both
the
northern Christian
states on the
Iberian Peninsula
and France.
Meanwhile, the Turks, another Islamic race, were expanding westward
into
Asia Minor and the Byzantine Emperor Alexus Cuminous turned to Pope
Urban II for help. After a fiery sermon at
the Council
of
Claremont,
the First
Crusade
was launched and Jerusalem fell one year before the 11th century
came to a close.
Following
this series of no
less than nine gruesome wars which ravaged the Eastern Mediterranean
(in addition to isolated campaigns targeting
Egypt and Tunisia), between 1095 and 1291,
neither Christianity nor Islam (or shall we say East and West)
emerged out of the smoking rubble and scarred battlefields of the
Holy Land the same.
The conflict was bloody
and destructive, but it was not conclusive. The impact of these wars
left an everlasting impression on mindsets of Europeans and
accelerated development throughout what had been a bitterly
disunited continent, however, the Muslim world also changed forever.
The cruelty of the invaders, often reciprocated, was felt more so by
Muslims whose lands were under attack. They grew bitter and far more
radical and some sought revenge.
A century or so after the fall of
Acre, major advances
into the lands of Christian Byzantium were
made by the Ottomans, and in 1453 Mohammed the Conqueror stormed
Constantinople and the long life of one of
the greatest empires of the ancient world
came to an end.
Three centuries later, a
western thrust towards the East began again when Great Britain and
France, enemies for the previous 300 to 400 years, combined their
forces to destroy the Othman Sultanate. The masters of Turkey in the
few years leading to World War I were impressed by the German Empire
and sided with it against Britain, France and Italy but the Turks
bet on the wrong horse. Their prized south-eastern colonial
possessions were captured and eventually split between the
victorious allies. As a matter of fact every single Arab country we
know today was occupied by either Great Britain, France or Italy
with the exception of Saudi Arabia, and the occupation continued
until the 1950s and 1960s of the 20th century.
So, ladies and
gentlemen, this is the bad news. Whether involving the Persians and
the Macedonians, the Carthaginians and the Romans, the Arabs and the
Byzantines, the Crusaders and Saladin, the European powers and the
Ottomans, the long history of the Mediterranean region can be viewed
as the scene of some of the greatest conflicts that have shaped
today's world.
Will the differences
between the North and South of the Mediterranean lead to another
conflict soon? Will racial, religious,
political, social and cultural prejudices and intolerance push all
of us towards a new catastrophe? Will we have a
lasting peace or simply an interval before the next conflict flares?
I shall attempt to
answer these questions and others later, but first I would like to
share with you my thoughts on the good news that has always existed
alongside the bad, but has unfortunately gone unnoticed by the lazy
history student until he removes all the veils of prejudice and
looks at the region from an entirely different perspective.
And I would like to
begin by stating that there isn’t one method of studying history;
there isn’t one theory, one angle, or one approach because we are
dealing with people, and people are complex and multi-faceted.
History is not solely the accumulative bits and pieces of
information which researchers gather from chronicles and old
references, but also perceptions held by people concerning certain
important events in history.
History is really a
narrative and as such there is always colour and vitality that can
be easily ignored by students who are only searching for hard facts.
The Crusades, for
example, were bloody and gruesome in every sense but look at its
positive consequences?
What were Venice, Pisa
and Genoa before the crusades? What were they afterwards? The so
called ‘trade revolution’ was to a large extent the product of the
Crusades, during which knights and arms and other logistics were
sent away and booty and slaves brought back by the shipload. Many of
the Crusaders that invaded the Levant were familiar only with silver
coins, and many had never held or seen a gold coin until they
reached the East.
Those who tell us the
Crusaders lived only to fight did not tell us the truth. It is not
true that the only sounds they were familiar with were those of
clattering swords or the charge of the cavalry into battle for in
the Middle East they listened to new music, tasted new food, drank
new drinks like soda (quinine for headaches) and tonic waters, wore
new clothes and jewelry and read new books and were exposed to an
exotic culture they never knew before.
The Crusades were not
merely battles. Muslims and Christians were not at each other’s
throats all the time. Trade thrived between Muslims and Christians
and caravans from both sides crossed into each other’s held
territory in return for a certain tax.
And when Napoleon
Bonaparte led 38,000 men to Egypt in July 1798 he didn’t bring along
only the most modern army in Europe but scholars and scientists and
enlightenment. Napoleon captivated the hearts of the Egyptians. No
wonder, then, that Egypt in the closing years of the 19th century
and the early years of the 20th became the birthplace of the modern
Arab renaissance.
And it is true as I have
just said that the British and French were occupiers of most Arab
countries but it is not true that they pillaged the wealth of Arab
nation. As of matter of fact Britain was feeding millions of Arabs
with grain from Australia because 400 years of Ottoman occupation
pushed millions of Arabs to the verge of starvation.
And it is true that
British and French soldiers established military bases in the
countries they invaded but it is equally true that they established
parliaments and political parties and schools and hospitals, some of
which have survived to this very day.
The great Arab historian
Ibn Khaldoun noted that the conquered always imitate the conqueror
in all ways and manners but I would add only if these ways and
manners are better than his own. It is no wonder then that the
exposure to French culture led to the publication in Egypt of the
first Arab novel. It is no wonder that the availability of European
books and their translations generated a taste for European
literature that continues to this day and it remains the most
influential in contemporary Arab writing. European fashion and
tastes were adopted by millions of Arabs and French is widely spoken
in many of its former Arab colonies.
Now, I have traveled
extensively throughout Europe and the Arab world and lived and
worked in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and
others. There are vernaculars and customs particular to each Arab
country, and in many instances even between large provinces, but I
can say with confidence that most of the people living in the vast
stretch of land between Mauritania and Kuwait are members of the
Arab nation. They have one standard language, almost one history and
they largely follow Islam. Moreover their most important traditions
and social customs are not dissimilar.
Of course there are
differences but I would not describe them as significant and they
certainly do not set one country apart from the rest of the Arab
nation.
But when we speak about
social and cultural differences between one Arab country and another
we have to acknowledge the existence of more important differences
between one European country and another, and I
am not referring simply to greetings. We are all aware of
these differences but they are not considered an obstacle in the
path of further European convergence.
But
ladies and gentlemen, does it matter?
Does it matter if one
wears a hat and another a kufiah; a scarf or hijab, a jalabiah or a
suit? Look at us. We are all different. Different does not- and
should not- mean better. Does wearing a tie make one more civilized
than others who don’t? Does eating falafel make one
backward but eating schnitzel progressive?
Not at all. These are
simply differences dictated by local customs, regional climate and
standards of living more than anything
else. It also helps to create diversity which makes us, humans,
interesting.
Still, there is one
major difference between Arabs in particular and Muslims in general,
and what we call ‘the West’.
How is it, one may ask,
that for 1400 years Arabs have failed to rule themselves like the
West does? On this point and this point alone, if those in the West
would like to feel superior then I think they have the right to do
so.
My judgment is not
unqualified.
Why?
Because in a number of
instances where Arabs exercised their right to vote, the West was
not pleased with the result. This happened in Algeria and it
happened in Palestine. The Palestinians didn’t vote for Hamas
because of its religious credentials but because Hamas, unlike
Fatah, is not corrupt. And look at what happened in Iran 53 years
ago? The democratically elected government of Mohammed Mosadeq was
ousted in a military coup that was
organized and financed by British agents and the CIA’s man in the
Middle East at the time, Kermit Roosevelt. The Shah Reza Pahlevi, a
brutal dictator, was installed because he consented to a new
agreement to distribute Iran’s oil wealth amongst the multi-national
corporations.
Is it any wonder, then,
that millions of Arabs and Muslims brand certain Western leaders as
hypocrites because they advocate democracy in the Middle East but
continue to support some of the worst dictators left in the world?
And let’s be frank. For
almost 100 years Western powers have been meddling in the Middle
East. They have invaded countries, toppled
governments, forced dictators upon people and given them
total support but still they preached
democracy and labeled all those that opposed them as evil extremists
and terrorists.
Let’s be even more
frank. When we talk about violence today we have to remember that
some of the most violent conflicts in modern times were between
European countries. And let’s remember when preaching democracy that
some of the worst dictators in modern times were Europeans: Hitler,
Mussolini, Franco, Salazar etc.
Let’s also remember that
not all people cherish peace; not all people cherish harmony, not
all people want to live and let live, for in many instances
interests, whether economic or political, are
considered more important than human life, wellbeing, and
happiness. This happened in the past, and I am a realist, so I will
presume it will happen again in the future.
Some Arabs and Muslims
view the entire West as evil but they are wrong. They look at
history and find nothing but conspiracies against them but they are
wrong again and they must be made to understand that things have
changed. They must be made to understand that there are millions in
the West who wish Arabs and Muslims no harm and they would like them
to be free, democratic and prosperous and they are ready to
do whatever they can to achieve all this.
And I would like to
believe that these aims were on the mind of European politicians
when, in Barcelona on the 27th and 28th of November 1995, the
Euro-Mediterranean Conference of Ministers of Foreign Affairs was
held. We were told in the literature at the time that the conference
marked the starting point of the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership (the
Barcelona Process), a wide framework of political, economic and
social relations between the Member States of the European Union and
Partners of the Southern Mediterranean.
Some of the more
important objectives of the conference were to:
1.
Define a common area of peace
and stability,
2.
Establish a zone of shared prosperity and the
gradual setting up of a free-trade area
3.
Rapprochement between peoples through a social,
cultural and human partnership aimed at encouraging
understanding between cultures and exchanges between
civil societies.
It does not take a
genius to conclude the process failed to achieve any of its main
objectives and one may go as far as claiming that we are in a
situation where the opposite appears to have been achieved.
We can all blame it on
each other but we should avoid the luxury of indulging in the
popular exercise of finger-pointing, because we can’t afford to
dismiss one of the more serious
opportunities to
achieve peace, stability and prosperity in the Mediterranean region.
We could spend weeks
discussing what went wrong but I will it make simple: Europe did not
have a partner at the Barcelona Conference and without a partner
failure is assured.
Certain European states
may have contemplated the use of the process to enhance their own
interests in some of the southern states but there is no doubt in my
mind that Europe wants stability above all else and the best way of
achieving this goal is to adopt the appropriate common position.
What is in common
amongst all non-European partners with the exception of Turkey is
that they are all dictatorships. They are ruling without the consent
of their people. There are all interested in survival, not in peace
and stability. They rule by stifling dissent and the continual
impoverishment of the people so they are not interested in freedom
and prosperity. They want the peoples’ anger and frustration to be
channeled outwards, towards the West, so their propaganda machines
are encouraging hatred and animosity.
Moreover, Europe has
been naïve. By providing these governments with aid, some European
politicians assumed they could use the funds as leverage to induce
openness and advancement of human rights. They were wrong. Most
governments used the money to bolster their own institutions and
become further entrenched.
Ten years ago at
Barcelona the Middle East was the largest open prison in the world,
with close to 300 million people within its compound. Ten years
later the Middle East is still the largest open prison in the world.
The Arabs today represent about 5% of the World’s population but
they are ruled by 40% of the world’s dictators. Do Europeans want to
tell me that these dictators are their partners in a process to
achieve stability and prosperity in the Mediterranean region?
The history of the
Middle East does not start with 9/11 as we are led to believe. The
West stands accused of implanting Israel in the body of Palestine.
It stands accused both directly and indirectly of responsibility for
the almost daily traumatisation of Arab and Muslims everywhere due
to the unbelievable savagery of the Israeli occupation. Iraq is torn
apart by a similarly brutal occupation and radicalization in the
Arab and Muslim Worlds is on the increase.
It would be a huge
mistake, therefore, if Europe were to conclude now that not much has
been achieved in the past 10 years and it is time to bury the ailing
Barcelona initiative. Europe cannot afford to make such a decision.
Europe must understand that the instability in the Middle East is
not the direct result of misunderstanding between the nations of the
region but the direct result of the understanding by the dictators
that their best chances of remaining in power lie in chaos,
instability and poverty and not the opposite. The failure of the
process is not the failure of the nations but that of politicians,
not of societies but of governments.
Something must be done.
If for not for respect of universal human values, then for economic
reasons. Since 9/11, the cost of security has sky-rocketed and is
running into trillions of U.S. Dollars per year. At some stage,
Western economies may buckle under the weight of such commitments,
especially with the urgent need to cater for an increasingly ageing
population.
I have
a number of proposals on how to reactivate
the process, as well as ways and means of enhancing it, but I would
like you first to think of what I have
just said, to collect your thoughts on this subject and work out a
plan, but I would like you please to
consider with me the current situation.
There are far too many
conferences, discussions, negotiations, meetings, seminars,
workshops that have been held in various locations at great
expenditure of time and money, but which
produced astonishingly meagre results,
or none at all. In far too many follow-up meetings,
items on the agenda yet to be discussed haven't even been
reached yet. Still, we
are told by diplomats and politicians that they don't have the
luxury to be pessimistic about the outcome of any of the difficult
issues that have plagued the Mediterranean basin for decades...that
work must go on, and it will take time.
For how much longer?
Already one generation of
Israelis, Arabs and Palestinians has passed away without seeing the
tunnel that leads to peace,
let alone the light at the end of such a tunnel. The lives of two
more generations have been empty of any hope of peace and
prosperity, and the infants of the fourth in Gaza, Beit Hanoun,
Ramallah, Lebanon and in most cities and towns of central Iraq are
casualties of military onslaught,
violence and fear.
Because it is viewed by
successive U.S.
administrations as essential to maintaining a permanent foothold in
the Middle East, Europe has been essentially barred from any
meaningful engagement in finding a just solution to the Arab-Israeli
conflict. The Americans would not have it. When Europe was finally
permitted by the administration of president George W. Bush to be
involved it was to send troops to South Lebanon following the recent
war, in a move
considered by many Lebanese and Arabs as
aimed at
protecting Israel.
Europe needs peace with
its southern neighbors in order to achieve
prosperity for its many nations. The battle for peace is ten
times harder to win than battles of war but it is far longer-lasting
and fundamental to the present and future of us
all. Peace and prosperity are too important to be left only
to politicians and dictators.
Only when people like you and others in all societies
and all relevant sections of societies
concerned are adequately
engaged can success become possible.
Politicians these days are not
under the pressures of the 1960s and 1970s to produce results. For
many, permanent conflicts ensure permanent employment. The
massacres, the killing, the violence, the poverty, the sieges and
the countless other facets of conflict are the "collateral damage"
of political inaction. At best, action
is nothing more than a
sedative or a pain-killer-
only temporary.
In reality such actions, when taken, are wishful thinking that
borders on deceit.
Absent from today's world is the
force that helped
shape many opinions in the 1960s and early 1970s- the student
movements.
A few weeks ago my elder son,
Sammy, was accepted for a course in International Relations at
the University of Malta.
Anxious, like most other new entrants, to know more about this new
and rich phase of his life, he wanted to
know what it is like to be
a freshman. I told him it would be
very different from high school. It is not a 9am
to 3:30pm routine. At most,
he can expect 15-20 lectures a week.
"What
did you do the rest of time?" he asked.
"We
were demonstrating."
He
looked puzzled. "Against what?"
Against anything, I told
him. Against the Suez War
of 1956, against the
American involvement in Vietnam, to protest increases
in he prices of bread
and petrol, and sometimes to demand better
sweets in shops. The Maltese know this very well. Maltese
schoolchildren demonstrated for chocolate
not so long ago and like us, they were confronted
by police armed with tear-gas and
truncheons. At the time, we had better
sweets- in plentiful supply-
and the American ambassador understood
our concerns
well.
We were inspired by
the
student movements in France, and we condemned
wars and oppression and the politicians had to take note of what we
wanted and little by little policies were changed.
Students still demonstrate but governments in the most democratic of
countries are ignoring them. Millions flooded the streets of London,
Rome, Paris and many other capitals of the world to voice their
objection at the Iraq war but it was launched regardless.
Like the media, students in many
countries are either
towing the government line, choosing
compliance, or are paralysed by inaction.
It would be
grossly unfair to blame the students for all the sins of politicians
but the fruit of inaction is inertia and we will all pay a heavy
price for inertia one way or another.
The Americans have
failed in Iraq and they have failed in Afghanistan and they have
failed in Palestine and Lebanon, and Arabs and Muslims alike are now
looking to Europe for help.
If you provide it you
will have stability sooner than later.
If you don’t you will have a
conflict sooner or later.
It is your choice.
|
