Official rhetoric stifles all zeal. We do not know whether the observations and criticism cited yesterday under this same heading on Euro-Mediterranean cooperation are all justified. No doubt they could be partially contested and corrected. We are certain, however, that the Barcelona Process cannot be rekindled though "official" proclamations made up of rhetorical affirmations and reticence to face up to reality, but only through review, and candid and frank discussion on the problems of substance mentioned yesterday. Ambassador Antonio Badini, responsible in Italy for relations with Mediterranean third countries, stressed the ardour of the diplomatic debate that we took into account compared to the formal Euro-Mediterranean meetings in which he has so often taken part, where "all zeal is stifled by the language of convention". Last year, European Commissioner Chris Patten did not get off to a very good start in his analysis of the situation. His manner was simplistic when he attributed the failure to Europe's slowness and delay in using the financial resources available. Some of his accusations were absurd, for example that concerning the hospital in Gaza or the non-utilisation of funds earmarked for the organisation of meetings. Fortunately, Mr Patten himself made some adjustments and, in a "viewpoint" published in Le Monde on 14 November last, he also cited questions of substance: the disappointing rate of economic reform, insufficient trade between Mediterranean third countries (while the "integration of South-South trade is the key condition" for preparing free trade), the slowness of negotiations on association agreements, inadequate results in the fields of human rights, the prevention of terrorism and illegal migration, and insufficient or lack of active involvement on the part of civil society in the reform process.
Mediterranean unity. Commonplace? The debate between the Italian ambassadors highlighted three reasons for the current failure: a) the lack of an Arab development model which, while safeguarding its roots in Islam, would allow Mediterranean third countries to enter the modern world and would form the basis of cooperation with Europe; b) the lack of "cultural dialogue", meaning by "culture" the way of life, relations with religion, legal systems and economic structures; c) the possibility for Muslim immigrants to effectively integrate the European society and the repercussions that immigration would have (with the resulting misunderstandings) on cooperation with the countries of origin. According to Ambassador Maccotta, Mediterranean unity is a "commonplace". Since the fall of the Roman Empire and the birth of Islam, a dividing line runs down the middle of the Mediterranean. Times of harmony have been rare (Arab Spain, Sicily under Frederic II) and the times of confrontation far more numerous, with the Crusades, the reconquest of Saladin, and the Ottoman offensive stopped in Lepante and only pushed back in Vienna, with often bloody colonisation and de-colonisation. In his view, if anything tension is growing worse and geographical, climatic and food similarities carry no political weight and do not create a link between the two parties.
It is possible and perhaps justified that this extreme argument should be challenged, but no progress will be made if we avoid talking of it and if we keep to the obscure and insignificant language of the official texts (including those of the European Parliament). It is true that, at the same time, Ambassador Cataldo felt it necessary to avoid words of intolerance, as Arabs respond to this with the "futile Third World-ish approach that blocks all possibility of progress towards mutual understanding".
The wrong target for the free trade area. A similar review is, we feel, indispensable concerning the aim of the free trade area, which would be the cause of ruin for part of European agriculture and would destroy the development of the Arab counterpart. A report from the French Parliament confirms our conviction. In this report, we read that, in the Arab world, the competition of European products "will lead to the elimination of production units whose survival depends on the existence of protective barriers (…) and will have adverse effects on the income of States (customs receipts account for 70% of the receipts of the Lebanese Treasury and 17% of Tunisian budgetary receipts)". To this must be added the risk of destroying the very structure of the Muslim society.
Will the EU be bold enough to carry out the reflection and the review that is required?
(F.R.)