No tears shed at the burial of Union for the Mediterranean. Despite all the feats of semantic acrobatics employed to deny it, this Union (UfM), as it was originally conceived, is now dead and buried. Originally, it sought to create a common and single free trade zone, the free movement of persons, and institutions that would be endowed with decision-making powers. Ultimately, it was recognised that a free trade zone was impossible because southern Mediterranean countries maintained their trade barriers and joint policies between them were impossible because there was almost no collaboration, notably between Algeria and Morocco, and between Israel and the Arab countries. France's alternative project supported by Spain, Greece, Malta, Cyprus and Slovenia is based on the “differentiation of partnerships” between the EU and the countries on the other side of the Mediterranean, where each of these different countries would receive “a differentiated comprehensive offer” in keeping with its specific objectives and which would be more advanced for countries embracing “the path of reform”. These differentiated partnership contracts do not rule out the possibility of more general projects bringing several countries together (EUROPE 10320).
Current events are taken into consideration because support for political transition towards freedom and democracy will be recognised and supported. The failure of the previous project has therefore finally been admitted. There will be no Mediterranean Union (in which countries like Turkey and neighbouring Adriatic countries seeking to join the EU would superficially participate). Neither will there be any costly or cumbersome bureaucracy. There will also be a little less rhetoric and effective support for deserving Mediterranean countries. All this is very positive.
The EU was also responsible for making a number of serious mistakes. In an effort to increase the political punching power of the UfM, its president, Nicolas Sarkozy, had insisted that the Egyptian head of state, Mr Mubarak, assumed the organisation's vice presidency and this nomination was sealed with great pomp and circumstance in July 2008. The rest is history.
Three questions for the peoples who have won their freedom. These questions do not in any way intend to be provocative but rather provide an opportunity for the people of these different countries to prove that they embrace all aspects of this freedom. I would like to ask them:
- Do they intend to recognise the rights of their countries' minorities (Berbers, Kurds, Copts, etc) and grant them the same level of freedom that they have demanded for themselves?
- Do they recognise that all religions should be able to be practised in their countries, on the obvious condition that they respect the law and rules valid for everybody else? (see below).
- Is it normal that the EU should be considered as the main and sometimes exclusive source of financial support to countries that are now free? Almost all EU member states are currently having to tackle considerable budget deficits and increasing unemployment. This compels them to introduce austerity measures for reducing their spending. They will, nonetheless, meet their responsibilities and maintain, indeed increase, their funding to Mediterranean countries which have now become democratic, in a way that they have always done with countries and regions like the Gaza Strip, where the EU has been funding the area's institutions since the very beginning. European Investment Bank activities are increasing and cooperation (particularly industrial) with European countries forms the basis of most manufacturing activity in these nascent democracies.
There is no mystery surrounding the fact that at the same time, other Arab countries dispose of almost limitless capital resources, which enable them to buy historic palaces, hotels, businesses and football teams etc, in Europe. Could they not do more to help meet the needs of the Arab peoples who have just won their freedom?
Religious freedom. There is no coincidence about the Council of the EU approving the Conclusions on religious freedom this week (see EUROPE N. 10321). In these conclusions, it expresses its “deep disappointment” about “the increasing number of examples of intolerance and discrimination based on religion”. Obviously, the Council is demanding respect for all religions and Islam is explicitly mentioned but not without forgetting that “the acts of terrorism recently perpetrated in different countries are against Christians and their places of worship”. The most recent assassination of a Catholic priest occurred the day before yesterday in Tunisia, and the Tunisian authorities have condemned it and sent their condolences to the Bishop of Tunis).
The Council affirms that religious minorities must “be able to practise their religion and freely worship, individually or as a community, without fear of becoming the target of intolerance or attack”. This problem cannot be hidden, it exists. (F.R./transl.fl)