The backdrop. The desire to give more tangible content to the Euro-Mediterranean partnership (see this column of yesterday) has probably been strengthened by recent developments in various areas: illegal immigration (with the dramas in Ceuta and Melilla, the need for arrangements with Morocco, the situation at Lampedusa, the shipwreckings of illegal immigrants); the fact that the majority of identified or arrested terrorists are of north African origin; the troubles in France (and elsewhere) in under-privileged neighbourhoods where French people and immigrants live together. The texts in preparation for the tenth anniversary of the Barcelona process do not mention them explicitly, but it is clear that these events, along with developments in the situation between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, are the backdrop. At the same time, the institutional links between the two sides of the Mediterranean have been strengthened, notably through the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly (EMPA), which has moved from the initial rhetorical and declamatory phase into a more concrete and useful phase, and through the initiatives to create or strengthen links between the two party's civil society and also (an interesting development) between regional-type bodies.
Parliament shows the conditions. The resolution adopted on 27 October by the European Parliament (reproduced in edition 2423 of our series EUROPE/Documents), while awaiting the texts which will come out of the Summit on 27 and 28 November in Barcelona, offers an overall view of the situation and trends. The EP appeals to the goodwill of the partner countries and their populations to “share common values” (which is far from being achieved). At the same time, it recognises “the in developing and strengthening south-south relations” and asks for “joint management of movement of people and migration” as well as enhanced “concerted counter-terrorism strategies”, and calls for increased participation of civil society and non-governmental actors in the management of the partnership. Above all, the Parliament recognises, with regret, that the partnership “has not had any direct effect on the major unresolved conflicts in the Mediterranean region”, while “south-south regional integration is essential to the setting-up of a stable framework for shared prosperity”. It is in fact incomprehensible that countries which often tend to blame Europe historically for their difficulties cannot manage to resolves conflicts between themselves; however, the partnership presupposes it.
In economic areas, the Parliament demands significant support from Europe to infrastructure projects and at the same time thinks that income from the region's oil and natural gas should be "made available to a greater extent for the economic and social development of the region and used with complete transparency in the interests of the population as a whole”. For textiles, it demands a true partnership “networks of schools, training institutes and technical centres specialising in textiles and clothing».
In the section on terrorism and illegal immigration, the Parliament rejects the creation of reception centres or camps for immigrants from the EU's neighbour countries. But at the same time, it considers the readmission agreements for illegal immigrants essential, demands that the fight against organised crime and terrorism be the subjects of concerted action and states that “terrorist acts, of whatever kind, essentially involve a direct attack on citizens" rights and freedoms”. The same vigour is present in the passages devoted to women: their legal equality in family and public life must be guaranteed. On violations of human rights and democracy, the Parliament is very firm. Regretting that “no substantial progress has been achieved” in these areas, it “Calls on the Council and the Commission to invoke the clauses suspending Euro-Mediterranean association agreements in the event of violations of human rights and democratic freedoms”. These clauses are, in my view, to be handled with caution. Some MEPs demanded the suspension of the agreement with Tunisia because of the incidents which took place on the occasion of the World Summit on the Information Society. But infringements of press freedom or of the activities of human rights groups will continue, here and there, for any number of years; if we suspend the agreements every time, nothing will work. WE should instead consider that the protests of the interested parties (which now have the opportunity to make themselves heard) and the echoes in the press will lead to improvements in the situation and increased pressure on the authorities, which will grow more and more as the partnership progresses. In the case of serious and persistent infringements, the suspension clause could be used, but invoking it too often will reduce its effectiveness and dissuasiveness.
(F.R.)