Taking account of realities. The proposal for a Euro-Mediterranean Union, separate and distinct from the EU, bringing together all the countries from around the Mediterranean rim, is not in line with the aspirations of the countries of the southern coast and will, at any rate, require considerable preparation (see this column in yesterday's edition). As soon as it was suggested by the new French president, this proposal was greeted by number of positive reactions. Who could oppose it as a matter of principle? Who could fail to back cooperation among the countries which have a coastline on the sea which has been the cradle of the Egyptian, Greek and Roman civilisations, to mention but three?
Announcing the plan, Nicolas Sarkozy gave full rein to his rhetorical skills. In his Strasbourg speech, he spoke of the need to “set the Mediterranean on the way to reunification after 12 centuries of division and strife. … Around this sea bathed in light, where for two thousand years reason and faith have debated and discussed, on these banks, where for the first time Man was set at the centre of the Universe, our future is once again being played out”. And what are the aims? “It's not just about making the Mediterranean Basin a bridge between North and South. It is about creating a haven of peace, culture, sustainable development, from which will be born, in this the cradle of civilisation, the common destiny of Europe, the Middle East and Africa.”
This dream has to take account of reality. There is no lack of plans and organisations, or of places for discussion. But what is the outcome? In its latest report on this matter, approved on 15 March, the European Parliament once again set a general free trade zone as the objective, something the countries from the southern coast are reluctant to create among themselves, accompanied by ambitious, but somewhat unrealistic, projects: Euro-Mediterranean transport networks, an integrated agricultural policy for the whole region, a Euro-Mediterranean bank, greater freedom in the movement of people. The Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly, for its part, devoted the major part of its last session to debates on Islamophobia and anti-Semitism, with the major concern for some of the MPs (notably those elected in Egypt) being to bring forward dozens of amendments seeking to introduce, over and above the general call for respect for the others' beliefs, measures condemning criticism of or attacks on Islam (such as the Danish caricatures, so censured and perhaps unfortunate, but clearly legal according to European criteria) in the name of defending dialogue between cultures and civilisations. Such debates can only be of benefit to fanatics and fundamentalists on both sides, and, at the same time, what is called for is not very realistic.
Economic circles' plans. The overly doctrinarian nature of inter-parliamentary debates is accompanied by over compensations in some professional circles. Andrea Canino, the president of the Mediterranean area “Economic Cooperation Council”, immediately gave his backing to the Sarkozy plan, but with a number of fine distinctions. a) European unity began with six countries. For the plan to be successful in the Mediterranean, progress would have to be made step by step - “it is clear that to get quick results, work must begin with the North African phase”, the Asian Mediterranean being far too unstable. And on the European side, it must begin with the four countries which are “genuinely interested”: France, Italy, Spain and Portugal. b) The areas of action must also be limited and Mr Canino indicated two - “joint management of human resources” (France will need 5.5 million immigrants between 2010 and 2050) and the management of natural gas, the North African exports of which will, by 2010, be equivalent to the current total needs of the four European countries mentioned above. c) The driving force of the new Union will have to comprise, in addition to inter-governmental cooperation, dialogue between economic leaders.
The Canino plan does not have a lot in common with the Sarkozy plan, which targets the whole region, including Turkey, and other priorities, and which, for immigration, envisages increased controls rather the freedom of access. Nicola Sarkozy speaks about a common glorious past, which can no longer return because the civilisations which were the players no longer exist. The interests of industrialists and trade are probably respectable but it is not necessary to create a Union to take account of them. The Community framework remains preferable to an inter-governmental project which would remove responsibility for key aspects of immigration policy and environmental policy from the EU. (F.R.)