The historical, cultural, political and economic importance of the Mediterranean basin to the EU is so obvious that there is no point in underlining this fact again. The Union for the Mediterranean (UfM) does deserve support, even if the term, Union, is rather excessive. I believe, however, that it is also useful not to conceal the shortcomings and rhetoric contained in the structure (EUROPE 10131).
From the absurd to a feasible project. The initial project was absurd: it aimed to create a new entity in which the EU would not have participated as a whole, because only countries that are in the Mediterranean or neighbouring it could have participated. It was a way of ignoring the EU's unitary character and, above all, was unrealistic because only Community institutions and procedures are capable of negotiating and taking decisions in domains as fundamental as trade and funding. How could we imagine Germany agreeing to decisions being taken without participating in them? How could the EU institutions have remained on the sidelines of this Union? The project was therefore revised and became the Union for the Mediterranean, instead of the Euro-Mediterranean Union. Other decisions that followed made the nature of this structure difficult to understand, especially when it included Balkan countries among its participants. These countries are certainly Mediterranean, because the Adriatic Sea is part of the Mediterranean but the situation of these countries, their problems and goals have no connection whatsoever with countries on the southern side of the Mediterranean. The result is that other than through the EU, the other participants do not have anything genuinely in common with each other, apart from the geographical façade. This does not mean that the UfM is therefore, in principle, redundant. Other similar organisations exist in other geographical regions around the Danube or in the Nordic zone and they are efficient. They do, nonetheless, bring together countries that share common interests and intend to collaborate with each other and the EU on well-defined concrete issues.
Both possible and efficient. In the Mediterranean, while waiting for developments that are, for the time being, difficult to predict, the objective is to accomplish a certain number of projects together, which are of mutual interest to all or a large number of neighbouring countries. Each country could participate in this as they see fit. The Peillon report indicated what some of these projects were: motorways of the sea; the solar energy plan; the Desertec energy initiative and protection of the Mediterranean Sea and its resources, which have been so depleted. For countries that have the determination and appropriate structures, one of the projects also included the gradual convergence of standards on food safety, phytosanitary and environmental questions. This report also refers to exchanges between universities and strengthening the “Erasmus Mundus” programme. For trade, financial support, etc, cooperation can only, for the mostpart, be bilateral between the EU and each of the Mediterranean third countries because the differences in goals and intentions of each of these countries is so enormous.
Premature aspects. Making the expansion of the administrative structures into one of the priorities is not going to be easy. The usefulness and urgency of this operation should be evaluated in light of the progress actually made and with the settling of conflicts. I would say that this also applies to the Joint Parliamentary Assembly, which must first of all prove that its members are not mainly using it as a “sounding board” for affirming political convictions or positions in conflicts and divergences with their neighbours.
With regard to the budget, a certain amount of coherence is necessary. Each parliamentary committee develops a tendency towards calling for more European funding in the domain in which it has responsibility, which seems to satisfy everybody. At the same time, however, the EP committee responsible for the budget has indicated that given the current financial situation in member states, they should not expect the Community budget to expand considerably in the foreseeable future. European institutions and bodies responsible for finance are urging member states to reduce their public spending. It would be rather populist to call for a completely different stance with regard to the Community budget, except in areas where it is proved that common action includes economies being made as well as more efficiency and that the expansion of European spending helps to carry along national economies.
I believe that the different aspects referred to the day before yesterday and today in this column should not be ignored if we want the Euro-Mediterranean summit next month to be something more than a solemn but inefficient ceremony.
(F.R./transl.fl)