Mr Gaddafi's appointment and continued African passion. All general, none-specific positions taken should also be qualified by a number of nuances, which do not change the general orientation or meaning of the position taken but which do take into account additional and appropriate factors. Yesterday, for example, this column looked at opportunities for promoting a European rethink on EU relations with Africa. Three comments would be useful in this connection: a) Why cite Mr Gaddafi as the voice expressing Africa's aspirations, when he is not even from a black African country linked to the EU through special relations? b) Why ignore the “African passion” felt by a large number of Europeans? c) Why not mention the specific dimension of the Union for the Mediterranean?
The answer to the first point is simple: the choice of Libya and its leader as copresident of the EU-Africa summit was made by Africans themselves. Mr Gaddafi used this position to vehemently attack the model of relations with Europe in which his country does not participate. Could we imagine him disregarding the wishes of the countries that chose him as president? If this were the case, these countries would have pointed this out. Point b) is an observation: a number of European citizens have reaffirmed their affection for Africa, their “yearning for Africa” and their desire to continue to live there, in Senegal or elsewhere to work in schools or another economic field or simply live there as residents. EU-Africa relations have a particular character and flavour to them. It is up to the African countries themselves to define the modalities of these relations and go in the direction that each of them has chosen to replace the regional economic partnership agreements (EPAs), which most of them have in practice rejected. Several of them have decided to enhance links with other continents and the EU has to realise this.
Why is the Euro-Mediterranean free trade zone unfeasible? In the context described above, the countries bordering the Mediterranean represent a specific case because, with the exception of Libya, they are part of the Union for the Mediterranean (UfM), together with the EU. It is quite apparent that the UfM and the EPA have both failed. The project to develop a multilateral framework for Euro-Mediterranean relations failed because the countries on the southern shores of the Mediterranean do not share the same goals and objectives, even if the EU is in practice obliged to negotiate specific tailor-made agreements with each of them. This column has tackled the subject at length and it would be pointless to go back to it in any detail. Nonetheless, due to the popular uprisings and regime changes (particularly in Tunisia), a number of figures (who should in principle have an excellent knowledge of this dossier) are being economical with the truth, in an effort to blame Europe for the failure of the UfM. For example, given the list of his different roles, who would be better to describe and assess the situation than Professor Michele Brondino? - a senior university lecturer in Maghreb history, Director of the Italian Cultural Institutes in Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco, Director of Secum (The Association of Science, Education and Culture in the Mediterranean), Head of the Mediterranean Encyclopaedia. I hope I haven't left anything else out? Well, he calmly asserts that it is the fault of the EU, which has not kept its promises and that this is the main reason why the Mediterranean free-trade zone does not exist. According to Professor Brondino, Europe had promised it but had failed to meet its commitment. It is in fact quite obvious that the EU would be able to put this comprehensive free trade zone into practice but Mediterranean third countries are not capable of doing likewise because they are keeping the barriers they erected between themselves and in some cases they have even closed down their respective borders. Some of these countries have even been involved in open conflict with each other and each country is seeking its own bilateral agreement with the EU. The global free trade zone is the last of their worries and on some occasions free trade has been overtly rejected, by Algeria, for example.
It is both facile and populist to blame Europe when in fact it is not responsible at all! It is wrong to blame the EU for the errors of politically dubious regimes and their shortcomings in the area of freedom and democracy, when the EU is in fact obliged to negotiate bilateral and cooperation agreements! The Community institutions are also castigated for tolerating imperfect democracies on the other side of the Mediterranean but at the same time criticised for not helping these countries enough!
This nuance game could also be extended to the financial sector or to the specific case of Hungary, which this column will be doing tomorrow. (F.R./transl.fl)