Mediterranean fiction. There is nothing real about considering the countries around the Mediterranean as a single whole. The Union for the Mediterranean (UfM) lumps together: - the Adriatic Sea with Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Albania; - the Asian shore with Turkey, Syria, Lebanon and Israel; - and the North African shore with Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco. These countries have nothing in common except the need to safeguard the Mediterranean from the threat of further physical deterioration. In that respect, however, no common initiative is forthcoming. As far as the rest goes, there is more conflict than cooperation. The countries of the UfM are often submerged by religious rivalry in which the EU has no reason to interfere. This pseudo international union survives by its inertia, with its seat in Barcelona, and its two co-presidents and one administration needed to justify its existence. It is not a significant political reality.
The findings of a survey on the situation to come, carried out by the IEMed among hundreds of experts, show (see our bulletin 10884) that: - the EU can play a role in the region (through its funding?), but that the United States and Saudi Arabia have greater clout when it comes to resolving long-standing conflicts; - the presence of Islamist political forces is increasing; - China and the United States will increase their role as economic partners (to the detriment of Europe?); - and it is unlikely that the regional integration institutions will reinforce each other. As far as political developments are concerned, the possibility of moving towards democracy mainly exists in Tunisia, followed by Lebanon and Morocco, with the most pessimistic forecasts concerning Syria and Libya. The role of women will be reduced, and water scarcity and forced migration bring with them the risk of further conflict.
These predictions reached by 850 government experts and members of civil society uphold my conviction that the UfM is a union in theory only, and that, as such, it has no influence on events.
The reality. The EU has obvious geographical, historical and political ties with these countries but must not consider that they make up an entity - as they do not. Even the southern rim countries do not form a united group: each acts on its own behalf, and none of them would give up their sovereignty by agreeing to institutions in common. On the contrary, they sometimes extend mutual rivalries or old conflicts. Each ferociously guards its independence and its national policies, and each aims to establish specific links to the EU. Morocco is negotiating a fisheries agreement, Algeria has obtained close links in the energy sector and hopes to consolidate those links still further; Tunisia continues to enjoy special relations; while relations with Libya are difficult and it is not even clear to what extent it still represents a single entity and how it can manage its borders with Chad and Niger. Furthermore, the territorial dispute between Morocco and Algeria has still not been settled. It is true that an Arab Maghreb Union (AMU) does exist and that its secretary general recently met European Commissioner Stefan Füle, but the general opinion is that the prevailing “lethargy affects the common structure based in Rabat” (see our bulletin 10890).
Conditions for the EU. Each country is trying hard to tighten its links with the EU, and to extend as far as possible the EU's financial support and the free movement of persons. Nearly all, however, encounter difficulties when it comes to consolidating their democracy and practising true religious freedom. The European Parliament is sometimes too condescending and too rhetorical. Religious freedom, women's rights, and mutual political commitments must exist on both sides and these are indispensable conditions.
The two faces of the Lithuanian Presidency of the EU Council. The effort made in this column to make readers aware of the spirit behind and objectives of the current Presidency of the EU Council (bulletin 10888) has raised some questions: How can a six-monthly presidency have the time or the authority to steer Community policy in relation to Russia? It is not for me to answer that. I have simply pointed to a significant trend that deserves readers' attention and which is essentially shared by Estonia and Latvia. Such basic positions do not prevent the Lithuanian Presidency from making every possible effort to ensure the EU fulfils as many of the European objectives as possible during its term of presidency. The programme - as the country's president, Dalia Grybauskaite, personally affirmed on 3 July when addressing the European Parliament (see our bulletin 10880) - cites some of the Presidential priorities: economic growth, youth employment, internal energy market, free trade agreements with third countries, etc.
The two faces of the Lithuanian Presidency are both sincere and significant. It is enough to compare the EP's discourse with the informal meeting in Vilnius to understand that, for the current Presidency of the EU Council, there are two realities.
(FR/transl.jl)