Strengthen relations, but… The EU must nurture and develop its relations with Mediterranean third countries. This is what everyone wants and we only need to underline the robust response provided by member states that do not border this sea, led by Germany, towards the initial launch of the Union of the Mediterranean by France - which stipulated that only neighbouring Mediterranean countries could participate. It is, therefore, not the strengthening of relations with Mediterranean third countries that is in question but the formula chosen for doing this: that of the Union of the Mediterranean (UfM)) with its institutions, bureaucratic heaviness, its Assembly and its objectives as illusory as the Global Free Trade Zone, when in fact the aspirations of each of the countries concerned radically diverge and no unity exists between them (see this column yesterday).
Over a number of months, the initial project further expanded. The extension of the UfM towards neighbouring countries (logical, given the participation criteria) resulted in bringing in countries like Bosnia-Herzegovina, Albania and Montenegro and so forth, whose situations and problems are radically different from countries on the south side of the Mediterranean and which have EU relations and ambitions of one sort or another. Uniting such disparate countries in a single Union, with the same institutions and same programmes is an unrealistic operation. Misgivings about it have actually existed since the beginning. Turkey focuses on its accession objective and is not interested in it in the least. It was without any enthusiasm that it eventually gave in to pressure from those promoting the project. Libya has never joined it and claims that the UfM damages African Unity. Certain African countries have expressed similar fears. The circle of sceptics, with regard to both the objectives and its method, continues to grow.
Sceptics' circle. This is not just a personal opinion; last December one of our collaborators, Fathi B'Chi, wrote in the MedAfrique journal that “the cooperation desired will undoubtedly not need to be put into such a pompous and ultimately vacuous structure. Questions relating to energy, trade, a system of rules of origin, SME cooperation, agriculture and migration do not require such grandiose meetings: bilateral association agreements and action plans would largely suffice… The most urgent task is not to bring heads of state together but to engage in a clear ambitious and even contradictory debate on the objectives. It has been repeated countless times: Euro-Mediterranean Cooperation focuses on 'everything except the institutions'”. I have to point out that the opposite has been done: a cumbersome institutional machine that slows down and complicates practical projects.
Unrealistic demands? Why does the UfM slow progress down? In a Union of equals, human rights organisations and certain political groups from the European Parliament are demanding respect for political freedoms everywhere according to European criteria: opposition rights, gender equality, freedom of the press and freedom of expression. It is obviously normal and even positive that many bodies and charities monitoring these issues have denounced abuses wherever they occur. They do this with the same commitment within the EU itself and should not keep quiet about what happens within the UfM (even if they sometimes create the impression of being rather selective). The problem results from the fact that certain political forces are calling for the suspension of links with incriminated countries, when in fact, an organisation like the UfM is not possible if one or other of the participants is periodically suspended. There are various accusations: one day it is Algeria because it is not respecting the rights of the Berbers or people from the Kabyle region (who are calling for autonomy), on another, it is Turkey over the Kurdish question, Egypt with their treatment of the Copts and obviously, Israel, for its treatment of the Palestinians. Even Morocco, which obtained “advanced status”, is criticised over “the forgotten cause of the Saharaoui people”. Tunisia is a symptomatic case and according to several observers has made clear progress in the right direction but shortcomings persist and some political forces criticise the country for not respecting freedom of the press and the rights of the opposition. Other quarters claim that assessing the country should also take into account other criteria: women's rights economic progress and free elections.
Concrete and less bureaucratic projects. EU co-operation with non-EU Mediterranean countries can develop on concrete projects that vary according to the country in question or groups of countries in question. These projects presuppose continuity, except in really inadmissible situations. A certain pragmatism is necessary. Prospects are sometimes positive but they are not all the same. Eneko Landaburu, quoted yesterday, welcomed the advanced status attained by Morocco and added that other southern Mediterranean countries can also aspire to this. Each country moves forward at its own pace. Disputes about the number of deputy secretaries general are not helpful and slow things down. (F.R./transl.fl)