Institutional reality. This column does not have the slightest intention of playing the party-pooper: the Union for the Mediterranean (UfM) is both celebrating the formal launch of its permanent secretariat and the inauguration of its headquarters in Barcelona, the city which has thus become its capital (EUROPE 10093). The ceremony was a success and Barcelona more than deserves this role due to its personality, its history and the warm welcome it provides. The UfM has therefore become an institutional reality, going beyond periodic meetings at different levels and pointless and verbal jousting at the mixed Parliamentary sessions. This is all very well and good and we welcome it.
Two different situations. The essential objective for this Union is to now adapt its objectives by abandoning unrealistic and theoretical projects (which smack of rhetoric) and for it to take into account two different situations: a) the idea of a major Mediterranean free-trade zone is meaningless as long as neighbouring third countries have not totally liberalised trade between themselves, and nothing would appear to suggest that this is their intention; b) the goals of neighbouring third countries in the context of their relations with the EU are all radically different and range from accession (Turkey, Croatia, Serbia and Albania, etc), to advanced status of collaboration (Morocco), to simple and limited co-operation in different areas (Algeria).
Is the UfM a waste of time or a failure? I don't think so. Strengthening links between the EU and Mediterranean third countries is indispensable both for these countries and the EU itself. Bilateral association agreements are also multiplying and becoming more far-reaching, with their substance regularly expanding and improving. An overall project, however, involving these countries as a whole, must have realistic objectives.
Preliminary condition. The first condition for the UfM to function effectively involves the Community character of the EU's participation. If this participation has an inter-governmental character, if EU countries are members of the UfM in an individual capacity and if they act as such, no significant achievements will be forthcoming.
It is obvious that in the trade arena only the EU as a whole can negotiate, not for legal reasons but rather, for very fundamental ones. The initial project, according to which only Mediterranean countries of the EU could have participated in the new Union, was a cause for concern: possible trade concessions involving only some member states would have involved a splintering in the common market! The financial dimension was just as unrealistic: EU funding and loans from bodies such as the EIB involve common decisions. These aberrations have disappeared but in some capitals there is still the temptation to leave the Community institutions on the sidelines, which would be grossly inefficient, given the European institutional system. This is not a question of principle or respect for national autonomies in certain domains but borne out by the observation that nothing is now possible in the area of external relations without the Community institutions; the Lisbon Treaty makes this even more apparent. It appears that Spain (particularly engaged in the process because it is currently presiding over the Community Council, and Barcelona is a Spanish city) has a more realistic conception in comparison to the purple prose expended during the launch of the project. We will have to wait and see.
A general framework. The situation is completely different on the other side of the Mediterranean. Given that neighbouring third countries have different ambitions (as we have seen), no government will agree to give up negotiating itself what concerns its own country. Each government will develop its relationship with the EU according to its wishes and capacities. Progress will vary according to each of the different countries and with whom most relations will still be conducted at a bilateral level: the EU on one side, the individual country concerned, on the other. The UfM could provide a useful and general framework if it focuses its efforts on a number of specific projects of interest to the region as a whole - such as the fight against pollution in the Mediterranean, motorways of the sea, the problem of water and alternative energies (with the Mediterranean solar project). One condition for putting these projects into practice is that it does not leave out the scientific and technological contribution of Israel. None of the projects mentioned above would bring all UfM members together, the name “Union” would not be the most appropriate but the results would already be positive and quite considerable.
In this case, the UfM would be able to help create a propitious climate. This won't mean that it will be making peace in the Middle East, solving the problem of the Sahara or resolving all the different and painful aspects of the problem of illegal immigration. These issues will be tackled in other forms of negotiations and through other commitments. I would, at least to a certain extent, like to be proved wrong but I don't believe this will be the case. We will have to await the results of the June UfM summit in order to best evaluate the real prospects.
(F.R.)