A brave report. The European Parliament appears to have gone beyond the stage of general affirmations and rhetoric with regard to the Union for the Mediterranean (UfM). Previously, it didn't go beyond the principle of political support, including support for unrealistic objectives (such as the mythical euro-Mediterranean free-trade zone) and supporting demands for increased funding. Last week, the foreign affairs parliamentary committee adopted a more brave and realistic report, outlining the reasons why this claimed Union had up until now only obtained very limited results. The report also indicated the initiatives and orientations that could make the Union for the Mediterranean more efficient.
I believe that this report (summarised in EUROPE 10129) has not yet included the whole truth about the partial failure of the UfM or what possibilities exist for its relaunch. The rapporteur, Vincent Peillon, a French Socialist, however, made a considerable step forward, by avoiding superficial pleasantries and obtaining the support of a very broad majority. We will soon see (indeed this very month) how all this develops, in addition to the results from the plenary debate and the impact on the work of the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly (EMPA) whose role, according to Mr Peillon, should be strengthened and expanded. For the time being, the usefulness of this Assembly is not very apparent because it is too often considered by its members to be a tribune for expressing their personal opinions about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and other divergences or to simply express their personal points of views. I do, nonetheless, interpret one sentence from the report as an appeal for more concrete and practical action, “the UfM's main priority is not to resolve certain conflicts that have pitted certain of its members against each other for years” (explicitly mentioning the Palestinian dossier, Cyprus and the Western Sahara). This is not the role of the UfM and even less so, that of its Assembly.
The real reason for bilateral approach. One of the benefits of this report is that it has abandoned the free trade zone (FTZ) objective to cover all UfM members, because it was physically impossible as long as the countries outside of the EU have not got rid of the barriers that exist between them. According to the dominant rhetoric, the comprehensive FTZ could have been achieved this year! This is indeed a remote possibility.
Overall, Mr Peillon regrets that bilateral relations between the EU and different Mediterranean third countries are developing at a bilateral level, “to the detriment of a global approach”. This direction is not determined by the EU. It is the result of radically different choices made by the Mediterranean third countries with regard to their relations with the EU. There are different goals range from accession (Turkey and the Balkan countries) to a special partnership (Morocco, Tunisia and Israel), a simple cooperation agreement and even the rejection of free trade (Algeria). The term, “Union”, with the meaning that this denotes for the EU, is totally unrealistic in the case of the UfM. Nevertheless, I can quite understand that a quarrel about terminology is pointless. I will simply point out that the free movement of persons throughout the whole of the UfM cannot exist, by definition, unless it is at the same time accomplished between the countries involved in this project but which are outside the EU. All of these different countries want bilateral access to the Schengen area, which is in contradiction with the global approach advocated by Mr Peillon. The same explanation applies to the “ investment” factor: European investors will not be interested in setting up in Mediterranean third countries unless the production that results from this can subsequently find an extensive market that is not exclusively limited to the country in which the investment is made.
Cooperation framework. The European Parliament should state in no uncertain terms that the essentially bilateral character of EU relations with neighbouring third countries is not the result of a choice made in Brussels but results from the fact that each of these countries has its own agenda on relations with the EU, which differs from that of its neighbour. In these conditions, the term “Union”, is devoid of the meaning certain quarters are trying to foist upon it. The UfM can only be a framework for carrying out the projects that have been clearly defined in common and in which countries that are interested in them have the political will to achieve them and participate in them with the EU. The Peillon report underlines the six major projects that have been retained over the last two years, since the formal creation of the UfM. Some of them do have a practical quality (motorways of the sea, the solar energy plan, cleaning up the Mediterranean) and should make progress. One of them, the solar energy plan, is effectively making progress but outside of the political and bureaucratic structure of the UfM.
Everything in the Peillon report that supports the operational projects and initiatives is positive. On the other hand, calls to bolster the Secretariat, appoint six secretaries general, etc. appears to me to be rather premature. This column will return to this subject tomorrow.
(F.R./transl.fl)