A theoretical Union. Henri Guaino's dialectical semantics won't change anything: the Union for the Mediterranean will never be a Union. Over a number of years the special adviser to President Sarkozy has adapted his project, extended it to all EU and Balkan countries and multiplied its bureaucratic structures. It has a luxurious headquarters, a proliferation of different bodies, conferences and meetings. None of the essential objectives, however, are making headway: the creation of a Euro-Mediterranean free-trade zone (which is impossible, given that Mediterranean third countries are maintaining and sometimes strengthening the borders between themselves); the free movement of persons and common projects. The goals and intentions of these countries with regard to the EU radically diverge. What unity between Turkey and Algeria is possible or between Montenegro and Morocco, Egypt and Bosnia-Herzegovina or between Israel and Albania?
Different objectives. This column examined the question at the beginning of the month (EUROPE 10068 and 10069). A few days later, Mr Guaino provided his own interpretation and underlined what he saw as the progress being made: “We have set up co-presidencies, and the secretariat will be set up in Barcelona next June. Things are taking shape” (EUROPE 10073). Apart from these bureaucratic developments or facades, all the rest will be taking place in the future, Mr Guaino indicated: this and that can be done because it is not necessary to do everything together - “the variable geometry principle means that those who wish to, can work together”. It is in fact true that the EU and Mediterranean countries can and should do more things together and the prospects in this connection are in several cases quite propitious. Nevertheless, the only condition for guaranteeing success is if they forsake generalisations that disregard the abysmal differences between the goals and existing possibilities for the members of this pseudo-Union. How can Algeria be brought into a vast free-trade zone when it doesn't want to be and when it is even closing its borders with its nearest neighbours? How can we expect Turkey to pursue this goal, given its real objective? How can we compare progress in relations between Morocco and the EU with the real prospects of other countries that are so far away?
Even the solemn gatherings announced by Mr Guaino with a quiver of pleasure, are uncertain. I am not referring to the divergences regarding the status of the secretary-general or the number of deputy secretary-generals. If it is matter involving the different jobs on offer, solutions will undoubtedly be found. Allocating each deputy secretary general with his own remit is already more difficult: What task will Israel get - will it have a specific responsibility covering the whole zone? How should the projects which are planned be organised (transport, marine pollution, energy etc) so that they function effectively, despite the variable geometry indicated by Mr Guaino? Nothing is certain at all.
Ceremonies lacking real content. There are also concerns surrounding the forthcoming large-scale ceremonies, including the June summit in Barcelona: Which heads of state and government will actually be there? We are beginning to ask ourselves the question of whether this summit will even take place. The Euro-Med Parliamentary Assembly (APEM) will take place as planned on 13 and 14 March in Amman, Jordan. This will once again, nonetheless, be mainly a talking shop with the different positions of principle known in advance, accompanied by mutual accusations and insults. In its preparatory meeting, the APEM bureau expressed a wish to restart Middle East peace talks and highlighted its concern about the suffering of the population in Gaza. Real affirmations but are they really useful? It will not be the APEM that achieves peace.
The real situation. EUROPE 10076 explained that several member countries of the Union for the Mediterranean “are now focusing on their bilateral cooperation dossiers with the EU (advanced status for some of them, upgraded status for Israel, accession prospects for Turkey and certain other Balkan countries) rather than plunging into a foggy regional approach”. This is the real situation.
We could understand, for example, that a country like Morocco is more interested in making progress towards “advanced status” than joint ceremonies, and that achieving this status (including fast-track funding for projects that are put into practice and already tested) is considered by the country's authorities as being much more useful than generalised theoretical debates that ignore differences in bilateral progress, in the knowledge that this funding comes from the Community institutions and bodies. Perhaps this is not how Mr Guaino sees things but this is how it really is. (F.R./transl.fl)