Chris Patten's courage and realism. The EU is, finally!, beginning to come closer to a realistic concept of its relations with third Mediterranean countries. I have always considered - and have not concealed it in this section - that some of the previous goals were demagogic or at least premature, beginning with the plan of a free-trade area by 2010. For many years, the results have, moreover, been extremely disappointing. Analyses and reflections on the causes of this failure are now beginning to bear fruit. The European Commission's fifteen "recommendations" for the Euro-Mediterranean ministerial meeting of Valencia (21 and 22 April) are both realistic (almost all) and on the whole courageous; Chris Patten's positive imprint is obvious. Remains to be seen to what extent these recommendations will be accepted by the partner countries. The Commission has also proposed creating an EIB branch for funding in the Mediterranean; we are waiting for the reactions of Member States; many conditions are necessary for this instruments to be really effective. Other initiatives come on top of the two Commission documents. To remain within the EU's institutional framework, let's cite the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee (despite its tendency of trying to satisfy everyone) and the Morillon/Cohn-Bendit Report (not yet discussed in plenary in Strasbourg) on the "privileged partnership" with the countries of the Maghreb.
Vedrine breaks the taboos. Previously, Hubert Vedrine, Foreign Minister of the country with the closest historical, political and economic ties with an essential part of the southern Mediterranean, had already broken some taboos in his speech in Paris on 31 January. He had:
- asked for a closer look at the proposal to build "a generalised free-trade area by 2010", which seems to him to be unachievable now and to think again about implementing the Barcelona Process and its methodology, by broaching genuine, concrete problems, like immigration.
- asked for greater flexibility to be introduced in view of discussing certain subjects with a limited number of third Mediterranean countries, instead of sticking to the global approach, identical for all.
Finally to see a minister recognise the unrealistic nature of a free-trade area (leftovers of the philosophy that Leon Brittan had imprinted on the EU's external relations) is certainly a reason for satisfaction for those who felt sadly alone in denouncing this mistaken objective. But, beyond that aspect, it's the overall tone of Vedrine's speech that I appreciate, with its idiosyncrasy in relation to rhetoric. He did not hesitate in stating that it was certainly gratifying to see in the Mediterranean, like the "polyphony of intellectuals", a "crossroads of culture", on condition of not forgetting that at the same time this region represents "an extraordinary area of the gathering of conflicts and tensions", and to understand that a comprehensive partnership presupposes that the conflicts are first appeased and that there is a minimum of convergence in matters of human rights, freedom, democracy and the respect of minorities.
The fifteen recommendations. The Commission, moreover, recognises that many conditions must be met to achieve a unified EU/Mediterranean economic area., and it has drawn up a good list of them. At political level. "the time certainly has not yet come to resume negotiations relating to the charter for peace and stability": the immediate goal, more modest, is to study the possibility of meetings between political directors, and, to begin with, adopt "operational measures" against terrorism (for now, the Commission observes, there is not even agreement on the definition of terrorism). The situation regarding human rights and democracy "remains a source of concern", and the Commission recommends that allocations from the MEDA programme, in favour of the different beneficiary countries, be "more closely linked to progress achieved in these fields", and that joint working groups be created with each third Mediterranean country to assess the situation and progress. Here is a recommendation that will certainly run up against resistance.
Just as clear is the Commission's stance on justice and governance: there needs to be close co-operation in combating organised crime, illegal immigration, trafficking in human beings, the management of legal migratory flows and how to deal with immigrants. Europe has, for its part, to facilitate the social integration of legal immigrants and combat racism and xenophobia; but third Mediterranean countries must play their role against illegal immigration, including "transit" immigration from more distant third countries.
Who's sabotaging cultural rapprochement? So much for the political part. As for the cultural and human partnership, many projects have already been launched: 400 in the last three years, relating to the common cultural heritage, the dialogue between cultures and religions, etc.. The saboteurs of these efforts are obviously the terrorists who organise themselves and train in Europe, taking advantage of European liberties. A terrorist of Arab origin who, having secured the citizenship of one of our Member States, uses it to prepare attacks here, alone destroys all the possible effects of the 400 joint cultural projects. The Commission proposes having the Mediterranean partners participate in the Tempus project and creating a Euro-Mediterranean Foundation, which would be financed with a contribution of a million euro from each Member state and the Commission and by voluntary contributions from third Mediterranean countries. That promises many other colloquia, conferences and different trips, ineffective if at the same time terrorists act on European territory or use it to prepare attacks elsewhere. Socially-speaking, the Commission places special emphasis on the role of women, who must have indiscriminate access to education and equal opportunities in economic life. There are no "common recommendations" in this domain, third Mediterranean countries must act themselves.
The conditions for free-trade are not there. Most of the recommendations concern the economic and financial partnership. They are addressed at both the EU (opening up of its agricultural market, effectiveness of its financial instruments) and the countries on the other side, which must: implement the regional integration projects among themselves (in particular the Agadir initiative between the countries of the Maghreb); prepare free-trade in services (at the same time as that of goods); develop and interconnect infrastructures; move towards sustainable development and a high level of environmental protection. At the same time, the Commission urges ministers to acknowledge that the creation of a Euro-Mediterranean free-trade area is now irreversible, while continuing to leave the indispensable conditions for achieving it in the fog. Why not openly say that this type of free-trade area presupposes the total freedom of trade between all participants? Freedom of trade between the EU, on the one hand, and each of the Mediterranean countries, on the other, is in no way a homogenous economic area. Private European investments will not be directed at partner Mediterranean countries if the products that result from this do not have free access to the area as a whole (and this is valid too for the funding of the future Mediterranean branch of the EIB with the exception of infrastructures). In addition, free-trade presupposes - in addition to the parallel gradual liberalisation of the free provision of services, already mentioned - a genuine alignment of legislation in essential areas like the harmonisation of standards, sea and air security, the environment, rules of origin. The Commission cites different areas, but without clearly indicating that they are a precondition to the creation of a common economic area. The project is unrealistic and at the same time harmful for both sides; I shall devote a specific comment to this in the coming days.
What is possible in Valencia. Must one conclude from the above that nothing will be able to be done between now and Valencia, and that it will once more be a meeting for nothing? That's not at all what I want to say. On the contrary, I believe that the meeting in Valencia could be a turning point, on condition of renouncing demagogy and unrealistic objectives. We should therefore:
- leave aside harmful or premature projects, like the free-trade area by 2010, and focus on possible and desirable forms of co-operation;
- acknowledge the possibility of EU agreements with regional Mediterranean organisations, given that for now a global partnership is an illusion, and will remain so as long as collaboration has not replaced hate in the Middle East. The Philippe Morillon and Daniel Cohn-Bendit Report, proposing a sort of Stability Pact with the UMA (Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Mauritania, Libya, see our bulletin of 22 February, p.14) could point the way. It notably places emphasis on the notion of "food sovereignty", which would enable us to go beyond the idea of a free-trade area for agriculture.
- retain, in the Commission's communication, the operational suggestions. As we have seen, there is no question, in current conditions, of rekindling negotiations on the "charter for peace and stability", but of establishing a link between EU financing for Mediterranean countries and their progress in human rights and democracy. The creation of a Euro-Mediterranean Foundation aimed at promoting dialogue between cultures and civilisations is obviously praiseworthy in principle; the question that arises is that of avoiding wasting money. In the field of the economy, the main suggestions depend on the partner countries themselves: regional integration, liberalisation of trade among themselves, etc.. But there are also a certain number of concrete projects that may secure political backing in Valencia, like the construction of a new gas pipeline from Algeria to Spain and France, a well as the strengthening and improvement of financial instruments and some institutional simplifications. This package of measures would already represent a good outcome for Valencia. (F.R.)