Three developments have marked Euro-Mediterranean relations this month - a month which is now drawing to a close. The first of them is the Union for the Mediterranean (UfM) summit report. This does not call for lengthy commentaries and confirms the political difficulties (which go beyond the Israeli problem). At the beginning of this month this column (EUROPE 10133) highlighted the risk of the summit becoming a solemn but inefficient ceremony. Will the situation improve in November? Hopefully, but there is no certainty about it.
The lack of identity. The second development involves the European Parliament's approval of the Peillon report by a significant majority. Vincent Peillon made a huge effort to go beyond the rhetorical phase of the parliamentary work, to identify real problems and not attempt to conceal the shortcomings. The comments made in this column (EUROPE 10131) are still valid. The UfM does not resemble a union in the least because the unity that exists on the European side does not exist on the other side of the Mediterranean. Relations between Mediterranean third countries and the EU are categorised by their radically different goals and projects, which range from accession to even outright rejection of free trade. Each country individually negotiates its ties with Europe, with Libya remaining outside the UfM. It is not the EU, contrary to what is continually affirmed by the Parliament, which “promotes bilateral relations”; the EU is indeed obliged to take into account the objectives of the different countries and separately negotiate reciprocal relations with each of them: accession with Turkey, an “advanced status” with Morocco and soon with Tunisia, and so on and so forth. In his examination two weeks ago of the European neighbourhood policy, Commissioner Stefan Füle included seven Mediterranean countries in this category (Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Tunisia and the Palestinian Territories), together with Ukraine, Georgia, Moldavia, Armenia and Azerbaijan; it is a symptom (EUROPE 10139).
Politically, there is no identity and there cannot be any identity as long as Mediterranean third countries fail to develop one themselves. The current fiction gives rise to some beautiful speeches pointing out that that Saint-Augustine was born in North Africa, or claiming that the current inhabitants of Egypt are the descendants of those who designed the pyramids. The extension of the UfM to the Balkan countries, in my mind, is a telling example of the rhetorical nature of the current construction. What unity of problems and objectives can exist between Croatia and Morocco, Albania and the Lebanon and so on and so forth? The Balkan countries will never really feel represented by common institutions based in Barcelona.
The absence of “regional will”. Awareness of the situation is making progress. Claude Fischer, the president of Confrontations Europe, expressed doubts about “the efficiency of the UfM secretariat-general, devised as a senior administration for an absent government”, with six deputy secretaries general in charge of managing the different co-operation domains, whilst concrete projects are launched outside or in competition to those of the UfM (she mentioned the German Desertec project, which aims to create an “immense photovoltaic field in the Sahara, which could threaten the Mediterranean solar programme”). According to Raimon Obiols i Germà MEP, the key factors in the failure of the UfM are the ongoing major conflicts (Israeli-Palestinian war, the blockade on Gaza, the West Bank, the Western Sahara and Cyprus) to which many other domestic crises can be added, and the “absence of regional will” in general.
The positive aspect. I now arrive at the third development, which is a positive one: bilateral relations between the EU and several Mediterranean third countries continue to develop, and on the multilateral level the number of concrete actions and operational projects, with at least partial funding, never ceases to increase, thanks notably to the EIB (European Investment Bank) and specialised bodies. The creation of the Inframed fund (financed by the EIB and financial bodies from France, Italy, Morocco and Egypt, and open to other participants) was given a warm welcome by sections of the financial community. Several key projects are making progress, with the participation of Mediterranean countries that have chosen to take part in them.
My conclusion is quite simple - the UfM cannot reach its objectives; on the contrary, it is making them more unattainable. Institutional constructions that have been artificially swollen and solemn ceremonies only result in highlighting political divergences, although there is ample space for useful and sometimes indispensable concrete projects (marine protection, energy cooperation, etc) and for the development of bilateral ties. Efficiency and cooperation should be chosen instead of rhetoric.
(F.R./transl.fl)