better part of the 19th, “Turkey in Europe” was the was Europe” in “Turkey 19th, the of part better the and Century 18th the during out, points (2000) they books, later attempted to turn into reality. As Mark Mazower history the and wrote historians who the academicians with together which, Empire, Ottoman the of territories been then until had on what extent large a to maps up drew the Century, 19th of congresses diplomatic the in that, powers the with originated that terms, historical in ination, cumstance: the Balkans is a relatively recent denom- without, their differentiation based on orographic cir- from creation historical a of product the are they er, unity.Rath- geographical and political differentiated a constitute not do Balkans Western the Similarly, and whereweencounterhim. begins, other the where place the marks that sea border a as and us, an defines which are, we who are we which in place a as border, a as and bond a as both construction its absence; its its in as presence in evident as been has Mediterranean the tory his- its throughout For space. common a as ception possibility of constructing it politically around its per- of unity. of sea a be can and is it and sea, border a be can and trum-Our Sea, and saw in it a cultural possibility. It is their it considered inhabitants its which in time a from derived reality, historical and cultural a also is It sea. landlocked a reality, geographical a is indicates, name very its as Mediterranean, The Proposition Ph DinPolitical Science Diplomat Manuel Montobbio Mediterranean the of Construction International the Theand Balkans The NewMediterraneaninaChangingWorld 1 The authorofthisarticle personallyunderwritesitscontent.
And it can be these things because of the of because things these be can it And 1 Mare Nos- Mare are morethanageographicalconcept: Balkans the start the from that maintains Mazower Even outside. the though the term is from based on a geographical referent, region the to referring of way habitual the become had this War,World First the of start the by Nevertheless, Byzantium). cient an- of peoples the of provenance the was this as — Romans — Rums or Rumelia, as Empire Ottoman the of heart the in known were they time long a for (indeed, peoples Balkan tothe textsreferring find to 1888 before — the year of and the Berlin Congress — Balkans, it is rare the as known be would later that territories the to referring of way common most an object of international construction on the part of construction an of object international as Mediterranean the of story The history. of stories possible the of one — in stakeholders be to haps not but per- — and of speak to mainly. is It only,even not or geography, of speak to indeed is ranean This is why to speak of the Balkans and the Mediter- geographically isattheheartofEurope. that zone a of Europe of rest the from differentiation the for allows This Islam. and Christianity between Orthodoxy, and Catholicism between drawn: been have them the from us the dividing lines the where not for the Balkans’ historically constituting the place it were explained be it can difficulty with only cation, Though recent events could lead to a similar identifi- lence andbloodshed.(Mazower,2000:4) vio- with region the associate to came quickly extent to which is hard to find parallel… Europe tions – of violence, savagery, primitivism – to an connota- negative with loaded was ecessors, geographical concept. The term, unlike its pred- From the very start the Balkans was more than a
115 Med.2011 Dossier 116 Med.2011 Dossier constructed from without, in a process of singulari- of process a in without, from constructed Balkans did not construct themselves, but rather are On A DualPoint ofDeparture Projection towardtheMediterranean O brings home for us, the need to rethink everything. shore is traversing an Arab southern spring the that obliges when us, history,that Mediterranean of ment mo- special a in undertaken is journey this that fact the of sight lose not shall We direction. this in path Barcelona a as Mediterranean) the for Union the then Process, the (first Process Euro-Mediterranean the of and construction international of object an as Mediterranean the through and Mediterranean, the vis-à-vis dynamics international and collective their and Balkans Western the through journey lectual intel- an on embark to going are we interrogatives, above the of light the in history, of version possible this potentialities, and facts these consider to And — andoftheirpotentialities. 2008 in Mediterranean the for Union the in tenegro Mon- and Herzegovina, and Bosnia Croatia, later of that and 2007, November in Process Barcelona speak of certain facts — the entry of Albania into the To speak of the Balkans and the Mediterranean is to their relevant international actors agglutinate its inhabitants and all part of the political entities that international construction on the Mediterranean asanobjectof history. The storyofthe of onethepossiblestories Mediterranean isindeedtospeak To speakoftheBalkansand history. of story possible that of how the and wherefore, the why, the what, the Which Mediterranean. brings us to postulate the in action international of a subject as Balkans the of story The actors. international relevant their all and inhabitants its agglutinate that entities political the n the h oe ad a hs led be ntd the noted, been already has as hand, one the B alkans and T heir International Empires, the Germanic and Slavic worlds. Slavic and Germanic the Empires, Austro-Hungarian or Russian the as such powers the in presence, the and powers, Slavic central the for Mediterranean the to access includes factor as a and which geostrategic of support independentists; Greek the for Great the Catherine the through solidarity orthodox of act an as sure, be to born, process A states. into tion organiza- political their and region the the of of peoples independence toward process the for on, Greeks the from groundwork, the laid empire, the which, of weakening the continuity and trends nationalistic to added identitary or resistance torical His- population. the of part of Islamization the with inte of dynamics the and invasion Ottoman the and of Greeks; Albanians with region the in co-existed have peoples Slavic the which after invasions Slavic the be inreflected the Catholicand Orthodoxworlds; of Roman Empire into East and West, the would which henceforth divided 395 year the in who emperor the Theodosius, of line the of Latin); precede that tute, together with Basque, the only living languages consti- Albanian/Illirian and Greek (hence sistance re- linguistic Illirian and Greek against up ran less neverthe- which Romanization, of present and past gave that birth to world them. waves, Scraps, or fluxesof history, the the of death and life the beyond history, them: through alive by remain that transcended history of scraps often and recent both is that phenomenon a historical constitutes states into organization their which vis-à-vis actors and factors by and them structure and divide that wires tension high- by conditioned is articulation political whose worlds, civilizations, cultures, among encounter of On the other hand, the Balkans are viewed as a point from theMiddleEasttoBalkans. of the contemporary geopolitical crises and tensions – and whose disintegration lies at the origin of many powers Christian the and Empire the between ship relation- the of question a fundamentally centuries international configuration of the Mediterranean – for the in events historical great the of configuration one constitutes centuries-long whose Empire, man Otto- the of rest the from them differentiate to order in precisely singularization A Empire. Ottoman the with finally and Europe, of rest the with then trum), terranean (known to its inhabitants as the rest of the Roman Empire, and hence with the Medi- previously had the with all, of first Common, ground. common been what of differentiation and zation gra tion and resistance it generated, along along generated, it resistance and tion Mare Nostrum Mare , of central central of , Mare Nos- tween the peoples of the former Yugoslavia from a from Yugoslavia former the of peoples the tween be- relations the took that passions nationalistic the to reverted protagonists its and narrative the sion, cohe- of discourse and factor a as disappeared ism social- and Tito When particular. in hegemony Serb peoples, constituent its of construction national sive expan- of ambitions the by annulled balance for tial poten- its seeing of risk the also but project, federal common a into them among tensions the channel to shared with the state other peoples of a the region had the of potential construction the more, is What the Presevo Valley, Northern Greece). AlbaniaKosovo,ofside(in Macedonia, Montenegro, out- populationAlbanian the by shaped was region the in action collective and agenda the of dynamic question and the Albanian factor Albanianin the thematics the and Hence, resided. Albanians the which population of the and territory the half than more little with state ent of this would be the birth of Albania as an independ- forterritory inthe Second Balkan War. Theoutcome struggletheindependencelamationand 1912,of in proc- the territorialtotendencies ambitions,andled expansionist with region, the in nationalisms other difficulty of achieving this, and the parallel advance of necessaryThethem.attainpolitical theautonomy to with along Empire Ottoman the from rights of class and schooling in Albanian, and basically claimed writing this movement, Rilindja the supported banians collective identity developed around its language; Al- and its national construction and the affirmation of its start, the from cultural fundamentally been has ism national-Albanianmeans Islam, to converts are tion an Orthodox south, a good portion of whose popula- and northCatholic a of Albania of heart the in ence baniancase proved tobeanexception. Thecoexist- the toward solidarity peoplesof these religions, acontext in which the Al- Orthodox and Hungarian) lin, spurred on by nationalisms and Catholic (Austro- ence, accelerated at the time of the Congress of Ber- process which, with the referent of Greek independ- A Yugoslavia1990s.former the the in integrationof and the Albanian state; second, the phase of the dis- Yugoslaviaof RepublicFederal the transformedinto with the creation of the kingdom that in time would be — whichheadcamefollowingato theFirst World one War Austro-Hungarian the and — Empire man first, the phase of their independence from the Otto- distinguished: be can phases two which in states, intoterritories and peoples Balkan the of ganization or-politicalthe wasprocess this culminationof The vilayets — Ottoman provinces — in • tion, which,inturn,presupposes: confronta- of instead cooperation of means by ples management of the relationships between their peo- the and states viable of construction the as shaped thus is Balkans the of challenge fundamental The to becomeaMemberStateoftheEuropeanUnion. means the and toward path a both once at is law of rule the and democracy to transition the Thus sions. ten- and issues identitary and national surmounting for formula the as integration European and builder, cohesion- external new the as configured is — day its in Empire Ottoman the like much — EU the way this In EU. the in integration and association, tion, stabiliza- of process the of means by integration of European Thessaloniki Council, the Balkans could envision the achievement the following integration European of perspective the with and states, new of creation the and solution negotiated a through overcome was conflict armed of phase the Once atory discoursesoftheregionaldynamics. an factor” made frequent appearances in the explan- “Albani-factor”the “Serbian and the landscape this na or the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. In and pluralistic states such as Bosnia and Herzegovi- perspective; identitary and religious, ethnic, an from seen states homogeneous Fundamentally play. in factors other with landscape a in side by side living states new of emergence the to led This difference. of exaltation the on based confrontation sum zero positive sum cooperation based on commonality to a • national action; to exist before others, the other, be- other,theothers, before exist tonationalaction; actors as internal actors, to being the object internationalof inter- perceiving to accustomed ourselves, Forwhen weareabsorbed inanexistence limited to
nicity orreligiontotheusofsharedcitizenship. on citizenship, that is, from the us of shared eth- rule of law as the fruit of a social contract based the and powers of division the to power single option andchallengeofashared future. principal the constituting construction, national policy objective is in turn an essential element foreign of this , — transformation of process the in blueprint a and program political shared a as the Commission constructing the of Report Opinion or Progress — action collective to road map or path the and itself goal the both sus, consen- such of element essential An sensus. European integration as from shift A the construction of the State as a as State the of construction the a path to collective con-
117 Med.2011 Dossier 118 Med.2011 Dossier Barcelona Process, Barcelona the for candidacy its upon decided it as policy eign for- Albanian enlivened that debate the was Such corollary and complement to the internal transition. both as transition external the undertaking of tion, evolu- ofmaturity, of challenge a implies situation a politicallybeenhavewherewebut us;absent. Such havehad presencea and which has been present in digm, of exposition. Like the Mediterranean where we para- of change a supposes others, with ourselves construct to wanting us, larger a of part as selves andourcollective action towards them, viewing our- policy foreign our directing borders, own our yond 2 hrnr” nihr U o Aa Gop bt of both Group, Arab nor EU neither – ther/nors” As the group that has come to be known as the “nei- terranean. do for me, but also as to what I can do for the Medi- tion arises not only as to what the Mediterranean can ques- The want? I do matically,Mediterranean what diplo- Mediterranean the in am I Once me. before rises them of advantage taking of challenge the and me, to up opened certain have opportunities certain and goals, roads certain on taken have I vehicle this in am I because and go; to co-pilot, a also but this vehicle in which I am no longer just a passenger, want I do where me, affect this does how for, what and why to as emerges question the and by goes time But work. things how learn to and there be to first, at satisfactory is it And itself. in objective the is firmation. To be a member, to participate, to be there, af- collective of act an achievement, an itself of and council of an international organization constitutes in or assembly the in country own one’s the of nameplate showing and normalization, external of sign a constitutes idiosyncrasy or location geographical of virtue by belong may one which to forums and tions organiza- international those of part forming state, a as stage international the on emerges first country a when isolation, of period long a of heels the On Construction oftheMediterranean the BalkansinUfMandInternational Lessons andPotentialities oftheParticipation Potentiality orReality?Youth, FirstExperiences, region. the in countries other for as well Herzegovina, as Montenegro, and and Bosnia Croatia, for option the See M ontobbio (2009). (2009). 2 and such was the potential of of potential the was such and Co Mediterranean, andthe of InternationalConstructionthe T lomatic optionofparticularrelevanceandpotential. dip- a and challenge a both is which tension, Israeli tioning of Euro-Mediterranean construction by Arab- the non-EU states to help in surmounting the condi- among play eventually could states Balkan the role This last question brings us to the consideration of the in allthis. other member states we want, what role we can play its with relations what want, we Mediterranean what ranean, but of what we want of it, what we want in it, Mediter- the in being of question a only not is it For –. ourselves for answered and ourselves of asked be to – answered and asked be and to yet are answers questions Many potentialities. its all hausted ex- having from far is Balkans the of path terranean Medi- the response, a toward steps first constitute initiatives such indeed if But Albania. of that in ety soci- lay a in coexistence inter-religious harmonious of Slovenia, or of the valorization of the experience of Croatia, of the Euro-Mediterranean University in that environmental con the of example, for promotion, The participation. its in prioritizes states Balkan the of each that potentiality or expectation given a cases, the UfM, the question in posed above has begun to foster, participation in certain its exercise to gins be- – co-presidency a occupies members whose of which have prior mechanisms of agreement, and one the option of moving toward co-decision-making, co-decision-making, toward moving of option involve the will that transformation A policy. suppose pre- to shore other that allowing never way some yet in partners, these to sustain ceasing never while Mediterranean, the of rest the in partners its with union shared a in and process the in transformed be then will that policy A EU. the of policy ranean Mediter- the as time same the at independence to awakening protectorate, French a still is Maghreb the when 1950s the of decade the in off takes that construction European A construction. European its of dimension external the in and reality graphical geo- very its in origin dual its finds Mediterranean he UnionfortheMediterranean,Process ntemporary international construction of the the of construction international ntemporary evto o the of servation eierna, n h cs of case the in Mediterranean, B alkans construction, and not one of the external construc- external the of one not and construction, separated by the iron curtain is a problem of internal with the peoples of Europe who had previously been relationship the logic, this to According Wall.Berlin the of fall the of consequences the of problematics ropean construction in the panorama of the broadest in again their own territory, once the objective and challenge to resolution Eu- conflict of territory, own but rather as the object of international action in their borders, their beyond construction international of not considered by the EU at the time to be a subject were They Balkans? Western the about what And impossible. is Mediterranean the of tion construc- the international which without the future, fundamental a towards and past the Turkey, towards actor Mediterranean and it, inhabit who raelis Is- the and Arabs the EU, the between us an nean Mediterra- the in construct to option an supposed it practice in and effect in Mediterranean, entire the to extended be to meant was Process the Barcelona of concept the birth its from indeed if Hence, Maghreb. the of detriment in occur might process, es, intended to foster the of advancement the peace resourc- international of dedication and to attention the whether to as Policy Mediterranean EU of tion configura- the in states key certain of concern the ignoring Without Mediterranean. entire the for and in feasible an option Maghreb, the and Mashreq the that of ambition commonality the for option strategic a an supposed EU; the of Presidency the Spanish under 1995 November of Declaration celona Bar- the to birth gave and and arose globality thematic geographic of ambition the moment that precise in but Mashreq; the and Maghreb the tween be- established policy Mediterranean its that tion differentia- prior the with line in process, peace the on the part of the EU to of to be the limited scenario response this for easy been have would It sponse. to re- a Madrid required and commitment, required from and Oslo, moved that process peace East Middle the in as well as , — south the towards also but east, the towards — Europe of construction nal exter- the in entailed it reequilibrium and sideration recon- necessary the by and fall, this by also enced influ- wall; Berlin the of fall the upon OSCE the into transformation its toward Europe, process ensuing the in and Cooperation and Security on ference Con- the with continuing Act, Helsinki the with ing a zone of shared peace and in stability Europe start- of creation the of point reference the by influenced option An us. shared a of construction the toward pean perspective or southern partners; and never- and partners; southern or perspective pean Euro- a with states with dealing are we whether on Accord for Association and MEDA the funds, depending in or funds IPA the or negotiations, accession the or Association and Stabilization on the Agreement within respectively framed be may former the that so – programs regional Euro- its and the Mediterranean of construction the for instruments the and states Mediterranean the of each with tionship struments and funds for development of the EU rela- in- the between distinction clear a BP,requires that the into entry Albania’s to response the in seen was as last, this question, A chapters. financial of even and instruments, of processes, of interpretations, of Intersections frank. entirely be to indispensable, even often — possible are sets of intersections and belonging of states multiple nevertheless And ment. Enlarge- of Comissioner the and DG the and tions Rela- External of Commissioner the and Relex DG the Mediterranean; the of and Europe of struction the con- – the of neighbourliness, and integration of logic intersection of site a be and overlap to out turn fact in can institutions, and commission ropean Eu- the of heart the in differentiated reflection tional institu- corresponding their with sets, separate and paths parallel were they if as treated been have that perspectives and logics heart at because Perhaps its dynamicandgeographicscope. transforming thus construction, Euro-Mediterranean in Balkans Western the of integration seriously the consider EU the did 2006 in Process Barcelona tive. Hence not until Albania applied for entry into the perspec- Euro-Mediterranean the per- not but spective, European the Balkans Western the offering been has EU the Thessaloniki since Nevertheless, Euro-Mediterraneans?” be to order in European be to wait they must ples, “Why not now? Why, if they are Mediterranean peo- construction, in response to which it is worth asking Euro-Mediterranean of process the of part form to destined are WesternBalkans the which to cording A logic – as the case of Slovenia in fact shows – ac- spond. is that integration opened from there on in and after pacification all re- later and association and tion Council of Thessaloniki, and the process of stabiliza- perspective of the Western Balkans in the European Copenhagen criteria, the affirmation of the European objectives. A logic to which the establishment of the these toward path a of tracing the of project, and space common the in integration of Europe, of tion
119 Med.2011 Dossier 120 Med.2011 Dossier uoe n te eierna – hc demands which – Mediterranean the and Europe of construction the of Mediterraneans, the Israelis, the Turks, the Europeans, the Arabs, the of – tory his- this of stories possible the of One coexistence. intercultural and interreligious and prosperity, and development shared rights, human for respect and law of rule democracy, stability, and peace of nean Mediterra- a in before, never as end, could that tory of history, as the possible beginning of a story of his- watershed a as potential its and Spring Arab the by posed one the is it spring, this heads our and heart our for straight aims question historical any if But of theOttomanEmpire. century ago they shared the common political space the a than more with little until which with Balkans, Western condition Mediterranean common their supposes, in the case of the latter, the assumption of also Which partners. southern our for Balkans; ern West- the for Mediterranean; the of shore southern ing its own enlargement and its relationship with the EU, beyond the necessity and challenge of confront- as- the for all: of part the the on Mediterraneity of sumption for option the in, stake a having mitment, also an option for the Mediterranean. Making a com- is itself, EU the or countries Arab the of group the of case the in as – group a as or individually them, of one each for and them of all for pose we ships relation- the beyond inhabitants, its all and its states all of space geopolitical common a as served, pre- be to value and setting a as object, an as only not and subject a as Mediterranean, the of struction tion of the Western Balkans in the international con- participa- the to commitment a make and in holders Indeed, the option to be Mediterranean, to be stake- the Mediterraneanitself. Union, for the rest of the Mediterranean partners, for Balkans. FortheWestern Balkans,fortheEuropean Westernthe of non-Mediterraneity the of cost the is reach a definitive judgment as to its necessity – what to order in Europe in non-integration regarding do can we as – ourselves asking by being, not of cost the of but being, of advantages the of terms in only cost of non-adoption of the internal market did – not the on Report Cecchini the day its in as – defined dation. The ultimate dimension of such logics can be other or UfM the common mechanisms such as the Anna of Lindh Foun- those and programs gional re- MEDA the to access have might all that theless M Mediterranean. better the And children. his for leave to like would tory as he would like it to be, the better world that he his- of story the write also can man storms, its and history of twilight the of defeatists the to response who not only suffers history but also makes it. And in being only the is man said, Zambrano María as For as Balkans well, intheBalkans,andforBalkans. the for token, same the by And us. of all for and us of all between space, common that of between identification Mediterraneity and civilization; toward that the affirmation toward oneself, with the of return the of itself, Mediterranean the toward Mediterranean the Mediterranean can also be one of sailing together on this possible and desirable story of the history of the But far-reaching. more also is Mediterranean the of be construction international will the as far-reaching, which more world; Arab the and EU the tween through which to channel a renewed relationship be- architecture or scenario international possible only the not is Mediterranean the of construction tional interna- the Certainly close. so us bringing are tory his- of winds the that now future, shared that goals, how to improve our navigation toward those desired ourselves ask to have will we and far, thus structed con- and travelled road the of consideration critical a in rethought, be to have will everything rethought, be to have will things Many spring. this change but help cannot Mediterranean the And changes. world our as world the change To well. as transition nal need, opportunity, and challenge to take on an exter- the dimension; external an entails time same the at but change, political internal of process a supposes fundamentally democratization, of wave every tory, his- of rumble or earthquake Every chance. a selves our- and it give we that task, the to up be we that M B ibliography ontobbio azower nean Space.Barcelona:IEMed-CIDOB, 2009. in an,” Mediterrane- the for Union Process: Barcelona Lno: Orion London: Day. Books, 2000. Present the to zantium , Mark. , Med.2009. 2008 in the Euro-Mediterra- the in 2008 Med.2009. , Manuel. “Coming Home. Albania in the in Albania Home. “Coming Manuel. , The Balkans. From the End of By- of End the From Balkans. The to the encounter the to Nostrum Mare