Whist waiting. This column was written on Friday and I am aware that most readers will not have it in front of them until Monday. By then, the situation in Libya could have significantly changed. Mr Gaddafi has exceeded the bounds of ignominy: in practice, he has declared war on his people. He is paying mercenaries, primarily Africans, to kill his rebel citizens. The following thoughts on a number of truths that have been ignored or not highlighted, remain, in my opinion, valid, no matter how the developments in Libya pan out this weekend.
The oil barons' perpetual blackmail. They are largely incorrigible. As soon as they see a chance to hike up oil prices, they rush to do so in any way they can. Serious analyses have indicated that the suspension of supplies from Libya in no way justifies any increases. Nonetheless, they have managed to raise prices, which means billions for them and the speculators, whilst penalising consumers.
The different analyses that I have been able to read are quite explicit: the closure of the Libyan GreenStream will not create any risk of shortages at all. On the contrary, it can help towards normalising the market because, currently, supply is largely greater than the demand for both oil and gas. This is particularly the case for the country most directly affected, Italy, because at the present time, the gas pipeline from Russia is operating at only 60% of its capacity and the pipeline through Switzerland, which transports hydrocarbons from Norway and the Netherlands, is only operating at 50% capacity. The major import companies have (on the pain of very heavy penalties) decided give up a significant percentage of their contracted supplies. It is much less expensive for them to re-negotiate quantities. Moreover, reserves are particularly high and the warmer weather is now approaching. OPEC is not fully using its production capacity, which is five times as great as that of Libya. What is all this talk about shortages?
Long live new Euro-Mediterranean cooperation. Two days ago I announced that the Union for the Mediterranean (UfM) as it had originally been conceived, no longer existed (EUROPE 10322). I wold not wish to have contributed to any misunderstandings. I do not consider that Euro-Mediterranean cooperation had received a blow, quite the contrary. The new model of co-operation ultimately advocated by France and already backed by five other member states, puts paid to a bureaucratic project that was impossible to accomplish and doomed to failure and replaces it with an efficient and necessary model of co-operation based on: differentiated relations specific to each Mediterranean third country; a number of common projects; and less bureaucracy and rhetoric.
This is exactly what this column wanted to see from the very beginning.
Facts and figures. The Italian Minister for Foreign Affairs expressed fears that a definitive rupture between the EU and Colonel Gaddafi could lead to a flood of 300,000 illegal immigrants towards the shores of Italy. The other member states did not take this figure seriously and our publication EUROPE 10321 carried a piece, “Italy's fears tempered by its partners”. This is in fact, a misunderstanding. Italy's forecast does not refer to possible Libyan immigrants but to immigrants from black Africa, setting off from Libya, whom Colonel Gaddafi stopped through the use of blackmail.
According to the information that I have received, Mr Gaddafi has been making double use of this weapon: by bringing in, particularly by plane, nationals from the Sudan, Chad, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Liberia, Mali and Niger whom he armed and used to quell the rebellion from his own people, then, if he manages to crush the rebellion, these black Africans will then be free to chance (with their wives and children) making the crossing to Italy. This is the explanation behind the shocking figure that has been mentioned. Libya would therefore become an enormous corridor for Africans that have been victims of his cynicism on two counts.
For the good of the new democracies. The European Commission's prediction that most of the new illegal immigrants will not obtain the right of asylum is, in my opinion, positive for their countries of origin, particularly Tunisia. Those who are sent back must help to consolidate freedom and democracy in their home countries, not only from a political point of view, but also from an economic one and from the perspective of job creation. Tunisia needs its young people! Those who are abandoning their wives and children do not help towards making their country's dream a reality. (F.R.)