Projects to relaunch cooperation between the EU and countries on the southern shores of the Mediterranean are blossoming and there is no risk of there being any shortage of initiatives in this area. The danger, however, is the possibility of a plethora of different bodies springing up, with the accompanying bureaucracy and appointments to functions that are already being carried out or which are superfluous (see this column yesterday). It is clear that for the most part, the initiatives taken or which have been announced are good ones and are sometimes indispensable because the EU-Mediterranean partnership is largely to be rebuilt on new foundations. Nonetheless, vigilance is the watchword.
Support for new trade agreements. The most important development is the offer made by the EU to negotiate trade agreements with Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco and even Jordan. European Commissioner Karel De Gucht explained that the platform would be comprehensive, the goal would be to integrate these countries into a common market and the priority would be to focus on agricultural products and services. Negotiations, however, with the four countries would be separate and the results would not necessarily be identical. The Council approved this position. The Commission will bring the negotiating mandate up to speed before the end of October (EUROPE 10460). Libya will be involved as soon as the situation allows. Certain countries concerned may wish to negotiate trade liberalisation when their democratically elected governments are in place. The agreements envisaged, however, represent an essential element in the EU's future relations with these countries and which will automatically lead to a clean break with the mistaken positions of the past.
A rhetorical project. In talking about past mistakes, I am above all talking about the ill-conceived and illusory construction of the Union for the Mediterranean (UfM). This was a rhetorical exercise, whose primary objective of reciprocal free trade was easy to put into practice in the EU where there are no longer any borders but was an altogether different story in the Mediterranean countries because merchandise does not move freely, some borders are closed and conflict situations that are sometimes very serious still exist. This pseudo-Union of countries has nothing to do with unity and countries like Turkey do not want to belong to it and do not consider it as a union at all. The extensive common free-trade zone should have been put into practice in 2010! There is nothing at all left to this project. The only progress that there has been involves modest but useful accomplishments between the number of select groups of countries in this zone.
Nonetheless, what can be observed? The institutions in this artificial construction still exist and meet, whilst maintaining their organisational centres and respective bureaucracies. Its Secretary General has even just set up a “Committee of Wise Men”, which includes figures such as Felipe Gonzalez, Javier Solana, a former Israeli minister and a former European commissioner (see this publication yesterday). Their wisdom has proved inestimable and they have been able to point out that the UfM will never be able to become the Union as previously envisaged and that the objectives of its members are radically different: EU accession for Balkan countries; free trade zones for Arab Spring countries; the rejection of free trade or at least its drastic slowdown for Algeria; a special international role for Turkey, etc. This UfM could at the very most play the role of a prestigious Academy for examining a number of projects between groups of Mediterranean countries. This task could in a number of cases prove useful but it has nothing to do with a Union for the Mediterranean. We are also well aware of the number bodies that stage conferences, discussions and debates. Our publication regularly reports on their initiatives: symposium on the role of civil society; conference on sustainable development; initiative for a Euro-Mediterranean Erasmus programme; special EIB programme; Euromed-Invest activities, etc. All these projects are useful but they are not always essential.
Limits to financial support. Unanimity exists on one point: requesting as much financial support as possible. This is quite normal and Tunisia in particular needs it. Nonetheless, it should not be forgotten that: (a) Europe and its member states are having to confront significant budget deficits, which obliges them to apply tough austerity policies;( b) the wealth accumulated by the former dictators of the Arab Spring countries has to be recovered (I am not just thinking about the scandalous abuses committed by Colonel Gaddafi) and prove that the economies of these countries also have quite considerable revenue. With regard to the foreign aid that it provides, the EU must be as vigilant as it is with regard to its internal spending and also exert controls that are just as tough with regard to how this aid is used. A tough stance is particularly needed with regard to the burgeoning bureaucracies, appointments and the organisation of conferences and symposiums. This obligation is required as much with regard to its citizens as to the peoples of the countries that have succeeded in winning their freedom.
(FR/transl.fl)