Contribution by Communist Party of Greece to the meeting of the Lebanese Communist Party: 'The International Initiatives Towards The Middle East: The Left Euro-Mediterranean Approach,' Tripoli, Lebanon, November 19-21st, 2004. By Elias Lengeris, Member of the CC of the CPG Dear Comrades and friends I would like to thank the Lebanese Communist Party for the invitation in this meeting. On the occasion of the 80th anniversary of the Lebanese Communist Party, we would like to convey the most profound and cordial congratulations to the Party which fought and sacrificed thousands of its militants in the anti-colonial struggle as well as in the struggle against imperialism, for the social progress of the Lebanese people. I would like also to express our deep sorrow for the passing of the President Yasser Arafat and our solidarity to the Palestinian people to liberate your country from Israeli occupation. Comrades, Since 1991, we saw the first Gulf war with the intervention in Iraq, the dispersal of the united Yugoslavia by the intervention of EU, USA and NATO first in Bosnia-Herzegovina and then in Serbia and Kosovo - Metohija. Afterwards, it was the turn of the Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia (FYROM). For the first time after the end of the Second World War in 1945, the peoples of Europe were seeing again the imperialist atrocities returning to the heart of Europe, to intervene militarily and to shatter countries, to mark new borders and to create protectorates under the full control of the USA, NATO and EU. In the end of 2001 there was the intervention in Afghanistan using as a pretext the confrontation of terrorism and as an answer back to the terrorist wounds of the September 11, 2001 in New York and the Pentagon. These incidents were the pretext so that USA – taking advantage of their great military superiority – could implement their plans for global domination and subjugation by all means of any voice of resistance. Dangerous doctrines appeared: terrorism is now the 'invisible enemy' that can be present everywhere. With this pretext, the Bush Administration, took measures of violation the fundamental rights and liberties with the so-called 'patriotic act.' Corresponding measures have been instituted in the EU, in Arab states, in Russian Federation, in India and in most other countries as well. By formulating the idea of the 'axis of evil', USA can interfere in every country that they consider it has relations with 'invisible terrorists' or confront the US interests. In the front line of this 'axis' are Iraq, Iran, Cuba, DPR Korea and more than sixty countries follow. USA also formulated the most dangerous doctrine; the preemptive war. These doctrines were first implemented in Afghanistan and following during 2003 in the second military intervention against Iraq. But it is very clear, for one thing in the case of Iraq, that the official US arguments was totally a fiasco. These developments have led the whole postwar system of international relations, which was based in the principles of UN and in the rules and practice of international law, which was based on this system, in deep crisis. What applies now is the law of the jungle. The right of the mighty. UN is either used to legalize this new imperialist order, or is set aside when the imperialist interests do not find any frame of compromise. Determinant factor for these developments is of course the USA imperialism but it is not only that. We would make a big mistake if we ignored the role and responsibilities of NATO and of the European Union to these dangerous developments. NATO's 'new strategic concept' that was made official in Washington Assembly in April 1999, fully replaced UN and untied US and NATO's hands from any restraining control. The relations between NATO and EU remain fundamental. There are of course some disagreements between USA and UK in one hand and especially France and Germany in the other hand but also it is true that 'NATO and EU share common strategic interests'. Just after the NATO Summit in Prague and EU Summit in Copenhagen, in December 16, 2002 a joint declaration adopted by the European Union and NATO has opened the way for closer political and military cooperation between the two organisations. The Declaration on the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) provides a formal basis for cooperation between the two organisations in the areas of crisis management and conflict prevention. It outlines the political principles for EU-NATO cooperation and gives the European Union assured access to NATO's planning and logistics capabilities for its own military operations. This will led, as NATO say, to a new, fairer burden-sharing between the United States and a more mature EU or in other words, in a huge leap towards EU militarization. Now EU, it is able to take a greater responsibility for military missions in the Balkans from NATO or US forces (Military Operation CONCORDIA in FYROM and a police force in Bosnia-Herzegovina are already active) and in Bunia (military operation ARTEMIS) DR of Congo. During the Thessaloniki summit on June 20, 2003, the EU made important steps towards further militarization, in the context of the European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP). Of particular interest are the presentation of the EU concept about Foreign and Security Policy submitted by Javier Solana in the paper 'A Secure Europe in a Better World'. First of all, EU adopt the concept of pre-emptive war: 'The new threats are dynamic... This implies that we should be ready to act before a crisis occurs. Conflict prevention and threat prevention cannot start too early.'. Equally important is the declaration on 'weapons of mass destruction', since it fully accepts the USA arguments on the matter. At the same time, it is certain that it will be used as another pretext for intervention, alongside with the 'protection of minority and human rights' and the 'struggle against terrorism'. The Mediterranean Military Dimension of the NATO and the EU policy: NATO's Mediterranean Dialogue was initiated in 1994 by the North Atlantic Council. It currently involves seven non-NATO countries of the Mediterranean region: Algeria (March 2000), Egypt, Israel, Jordan (November 1995), Mauritania, Morocco, and Tunisia. In Prague Summit NATO reaffirm 'that security in Europe is closely linked to security and stability in the Mediterranean'. They decided to upgrade substantially the political and practical dimensions of the Mediterranean Dialogue as an integral part of the NATO's cooperative approach to 'security'. But the Mediterranean Dialogue and other efforts like the EU Barcelona process (Euro-Mediterranean Partnership, started on November 1995), are complementary and mutually reinforcing. The 12 EU Mediterranean 'Partners', situated in the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean are Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia (Maghreb); Egypt, Israel, Jordan, the Palestinian Authority, Lebanon, Syria (Mashrek); Turkey, Cyprus and Malta; Libya currently has observer status. Mr. Solana in his paper in Thessaloniki summit note that: 'The Mediterranean area generally continues to undergo serious problems of economic stagnation, social unrest and unresolved conflicts. The European Union's interests require a continued engagement with Mediterranean partners, through more effective economic , security and cultural cooperation in the framework of the Barcelona Process'. That is the common ground of the intervention of both organisations in the Mediterranean region. During this period we are facing the US 'Greater Middle East' or 'Broader Middle East' plan, which has been adopted, despite the one or the other differentiation, substantially by the G 8[1], NATO and the European Union, aiming in the complete reformation of the region according to the imperialist interests. NATO, in Istanbul Summit on June 28 and 29, 2004 has adopted the 'Istanbul Cooperation Initiative'. The initiative focuses on practical cooperation with interested countries in the region, starting with the countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council. Egypt, Jordan and Morocco have participated in the NATO's operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina, under both IFOR and SFOR. And Jordanian and Moroccan troops are currently involved in the NATO-led KFOR operations in Kosovo. As have already worked under NATO command in the Balkans, these same countries might now consider sending troops to the NATO-led mission in Afghanistan or joining NATO operations elsewhere. This was the first dangerous step. To build security partnerships in the wider Mediterranean region and the Greater Middle East, NATO now needs to develop greater expertise in this part of the world and to increase institutional mechanisms for engagement. Need to have a mechanism with a great flexibility! This requires active engagement not only of government bodies but also of non-governmental organisations. As NATO note: 'Within the region as a whole, civil society is less developed than in most of Europe, as was the case in Central and Eastern Europe 15 years ago. This makes the engagement of non-governmental organisations and universities important, both as a means of getting NATO's message across and to help the development of democracy.'. And what is the meaning of this 'Democracy'? A 'New' value system: The more interventionist US approach to the Middle East, as well as NATO and EU, is accompanied by an attempt to change the value system in the region to bring it more in line with Western, democratic models. This process and the huge imbalance in power caused by the US military presence and the uneven possession of advanced weaponry in the region – like nuclear weapons in Israel – may generate further instability. By seeking to address the cultural aspects of security and promote values such as 'democracy, human rights and open society', it will be even more important to craft new operational concepts and cooperation strategies between NATO, the Dialogue countries and other actors in the region. This is the new aggressiveness of imperialism in the region. A model to 'export democracy', a democracy of monopoly capital for the fierce exploitation of the people and the raw materials of the region (oil, natural gas, diamonds etc.) If they don't mean a full submission of the people of the region to imperialism then what does? There is also the aggressiveness of Imperialism against Lebanon (like UN Security Council Resolution 1559/2004 on 2 September), Syria (with the USA ultimatum in Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003), and Iran and the ongoing criminal invasion of the government of Israel against the Palestinian people, the developments in the area of Darfour in Sudan, in Nigeria and in Ivory Coast. However, despite the intense repression, Imperialism has not yet managed to finish off national liberation struggles and revolutionary movements by either political or military means. The Palestinian Intifada that goes on, the resistance to the occupation forces in Iraq that grows stronger, the people's victory in the referendum in Venezuela, the people's voting in Uruguay, all those constitute facts of broader significance and point out that the peoples' struggles against the imperialist domination and aggression continue unceasing. I think it is necessary to coordinate our efforts to: Denouncing imperialist wars and interventions that are taking place on the pretext of fighting terrorism. Revealing and dealing with state terrorism and the laws of oppression that are being enforced in essence against the peoples and movements that resist and fight against the new world order. Especially against to the 'Broader Middle East' plan. Supporting particularly the struggles that are carried out for the fundamental democratic rights and liberties in our countries, as well as to every country. Stepping up our struggle against the establishment of a new international law that reflects the principle of might is right. Defending the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of independent sovereign states and the principle of respect for states' territorial integrity and independence. Defending the right of the peoples to make a sovereign choice of their own path of governance and development and to determine their own future. Let us strengthen our opposition to NATO and the new doctrine, which does not recognise frontiers, and the military action has no boundaries, and the consequences of its aggressive policy for our region, as well as to every attempt of it to expand towards east or towards the south (Mediterranean). Also to affirm:

a. Full Israeli withdrawal from all the territories occupied since 1967, including the Syrian Golan Heights to the lines of June 4, 1967 as well as the remaining occupied Lebanese territories in the south of Lebanon (the Lebanese Shaba'a Farms).

b. Achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian Refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with UN General Assembly Resolution 194.

c. The acceptance by Israeli government of the establishment of a Sovereign Independent Palestinian State on the Palestinian territories occupied since the 4th of June 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza strip, with Al-Quds (East Jerusalem) as its capital. ------------------------------------------------------------ - [1] G8 Statement: Gaza Withdrawal and the Road to Mideast Peace, Statement on Sudan, Partnership for Progress and a Common Future with the Region of the Broader Middle East and North Africa and G8 Plan of Support for Reform on June 6, 2004 in Sea Island of USA.