No progress to real objectives. A lot has been said about the Union for the Mediterranean (UfM) recently: appointments, the setting up of the secretariat, conferences, meetings and different positions. The UfM, however, has made no progress and instead of going forwards it is going backwards. The organisation has its secretary general installed in a palace in Barcelona where he is waiting to be joined by his six (instead of five as initially planned) deputy secretary-generals - one more can't do any harm. Speaking on behalf of France (which shares the co-presidency with Egypt), Bernard Kouchner declared that the nomination of the secretary-general represents a “decisive step forward”. Undoubtedly he's right: offices, officials, conferences and meetings are expanding. The few differences there are with regard to cost sharing will certainly be overcome and we already know who will pay most of these costs.
Global free trade zone is just sloganising. But what are the objectives? The first, as we are aware, is a vast free-trade zone incorporating all the countries of the UfM and the deadline for setting it up is 2010, this year. It is true that with regard to the calendar, more caution has been demonstrated: the programme of the Spanish Presidency of the Council simply indicates that there is an objective to “stimulate negotiations on the Euro-Mediterranean free-trade zone” (EUROPE 10066). The deadline has been forgotten about but the objective still remains. Moreover, the politicians who reaffirm this (including those at the European Parliament) appear to ignore the fact that a global FTZ presupposes that free trade exists between Mediterranean third countries as it does within the EU. On the other side of the Mediterranean, however, nothing like this exists or is being planned: certain borders are completely closed and the countries concerned have no intention of opening them up - and the situation has even got worse. It is not me who is saying this, the Moroccan journalist, Mohamed Chaoui, explained that Algeria's most recent measure was the closing down of economic borders and added that this is not an isolated case: “Even when a free trade agreement is signed, such as the Quadra agreement, it is not respected. Economic operators learnt this to their cost on the Tunisian, Egyptian and Jordanian markets”.
Interests and goals diverge. There are obviously some justifications for the positions taken above. The truth is that the goals and interests of non-EU Mediterranean countries radically diverge. In its trade relations with the EU, Turkey is already in a customs union system that is more advanced than simple free-trade. Algeria is aware that its export products - gas and oil - benefit from unhindered access to the European market and that free trade would mean the opening up of its borders to European products, which it does not want. Morocco has obtained “advanced status”, which Eneko Landaburu, head of the EU delegation, explained as recognition by the EU of the progress accomplished by this country in pushing through economic, social and political reforms - a country which will, in practice, be totally integrated with the European internal market (EUROPE 10032); it has no interest in basing itself on other relations. The relationship between the EU and Israel is completely different, and it is pointless highlighting the difficulties in relations between the latter and Muslim countries. Other countries have concluded bilateral trade and cooperation agreements with the EU, and even between themselves in certain cases, but there is no question of a global free trade zone. In these conditions, the greater Euro-Mediterranean free trade zone is nothing but sloganising and a point of view. Those calling for it do so either because of demagogy or ignorance. It is also necessary to understand to what point the absence of free trade between Mediterranean third countries discourages European investments. If a business leader knows that his production in a country on the other side of the Mediterranean has free access in the whole zone, he would be interested in investing but if businesses' have only a common market in the country of investment, the latter will not be a profitable option. The figures bear this out.
A cumbersome structure causing paralysis. All of this does not mean in any way that relations between Mediterranean third countries and the EU are in an impasse. On the contrary, they are positively progressing at a bilateral level and sometimes go beyond national geographical limitations. Some of these countries have set up groups around interesting initiatives and we are aware that certain major and shared projects are necessary. It is not the perspective or goodwill that is lacking, it is the cumbersome and bureaucratic structure of the UfM, which is inappropriate. The Joint Parliamentary Assembly is a forum for taking political decisions that are undoubtedly legitimate and even logical within its framework, but they do not help achieve anything in practice. We do not need this Assembly to find out to what point Egyptian or Palestinian parliamentarians criticise the behaviour of Israel or that certain European parliamentarians condemn the absence of freedom and infringements to human rights on the other side of the Mediterranean. This column will return to this subject tomorrow.
(F.R./transl.fl)