A re-launch all too often announced. The Euro-Mediterranean Ministerial session of Valencia did what it had to and could do in the current circumstances. It: a) confirmed the general principles of the partnership's major objectives; 2) defined an action plan that attempts provide substance to future activity and render it operational; 3) acknowledges, in a veiled kind of way, the possibility of specific actions not necessarily involving all third Mediterranean countries (TMCs), but a certain number of them. I nevertheless hesitate to claim that the partnership has been re-launched, as I've heard that claim all too often: practically every time the President of the Conference and the European Commission have reported on the outcome of the latest meeting. It's for the sake of European charity that I shall not mention the declarations along those lines, ever renewed and ever denied by actual developments. Thus, caution. We shall speak of the partnership's re-launch when the facts are there. For now, I shall simply set out some reasons for hope and reasons that call for caution.
The unified Euro-Mediterranean economic area has been put aside. Officially, the goal remains, and even the 2010 deadline for its achievement is mentioned. It's possibly the WTO rules that demand this. In fact, it no more than a hypothetical arrival point for an undetermined future. A free-trade area and, a fortiori, a unified economic area presupposes the abolition of all borders between participating countries. In the EU, it's done; the TMCs, for their part, have yet to do it. But they are not on the right path. I'm not only thinking of the gaping hole between Arab countries and Israel, but also between some Arab countries themselves. They are still waiting for their Schuman, their Adenauer, their Gasperi and their Monnet. We'll see. What we can already say, is that the frontiers between them will not have disappeared by 2010 and that there will be no unified Euro-Mediterranean area by that date.
This obviously does not mean that nothing will be achieved in the meantime. The Action Plan approved sets out preliminary fields where action will be needed to move towards the point of arrival, but with caution: rules of origin, customs procedures and other technical fields. For services, a working group will carry out an in-depth examination of the problems and discuss ways of rendering more liberal existing rules governing transport, telecommunications and company services. Neither timetable nor measures are indicated. For Access to agricultural markets, the Commission will carry out a study on the impact of liberalisation for the EU and the TMCs. Let's hope that this will be a serious study, not limited to calculating how much money will be required to "compensate" for the negative effects on European agriculture. The road to go down seems clear: increase the degree of liberalisation by one-off measures, product by product, as has so far been done, leaving aside the reciprocal total opening up of markets (that would be ruinous for both sides).
The real priorities. The theoretical objective having been placed on the back burner, attention has focused on other aspects. The most important concern the political dialogue (on human rights, democracy, foreign policy and conflict prevention) and inclusion of two essential areas among the tasks of the partnership: combating terrorism, organised crime and drugs, and genuine co-operation regarding immigration. In exchange, the EU is prepared to strive to open up the Galileo project to the Mediterranean partners and for the development of their connections to European energy networks, with a possibility of increased EIB financing. Now that's substance, those are priorities actually useful for all concerned. But it has to be clear that they represent a whole.
The remainder, it's the usual list of hopes (increased flows in private investments, strengthening the role of the private sector in general, access to innovation and new technologies, etc.) that, whether or not they will be achieved, depends closely on the creation of the indispensable conditions in the Mediterranean countries themselves. Otherwise, its all pie in the sky. I have not to forget the two most spectacular achievements: the Euro-Mediterranean Foundation and the Joint Parliamentary Assembly. What's certain is that they'll cost quite a bit of money; what is less so, are their results and effectiveness, that could be appreciable but could also be insignificant. The political authorities are adamant, let's do it. Their promoters may be right.
On the whole, Chris Patten is right in stating that the main condition for the success of the Euro-Mediterranean partnership is economic and social development on the southern banks. Yet, this foremost depends on the choice of society and political choices the TMCs will made themselves. Otherwise, the "prosperity gap" will to widen, and the rest will be ineffective. (F.R.)