Major weaknesses of Sarkozy project. The demand for reviewing and deepening EU relations with Mediterranean third countries is obviously not in dispute; it gets stronger daily in several aspects such as energy supply or the drama of illegal immigration. The perplexities and doubts already expressed in this column about the Euro-Mediterranean project are therefore in no way referring to the demand to deepen and improve relations but more to how this solution is conceptualised. In my opinion the project launched by Nicolas Sarkozy contains two major weaknesses:
a) it does not target the whole of the EU but rather its neighbouring member states. This limitation is unacceptable to excluded member states which have historically played a direct role in the Mediterranean (we only need mention the United Kingdom) or are directly concerned by immigration from neighbouring countries (Germany, for example); and all are concerned by gas and oil imports. The absence of reference to the EU institutions would also mean a purely intergovernmental construction when in fact certain essential aspects of the envisaged cooperation depend directly on the EU, such as trade policy, and when in fact the EU, as a whole, strives to define new common policies structured for energy, the environment and immigration;
b) the project is based on the illusion that Mediterranean third countries now make up a fairly uniform and compact group. In fact the only thing linking them is geography; there is practically no trade between them, economic cooperation is weak or non-existent, and they are separated by conflicts and significant political differences not only involving Israel but also Algeria, Morocco, Syria and Lebanon. In these conditions a new common construction would be artificial and create nothing but disappointments resulting from current mechanisms.
The confusion and criticism surrounding the Sarkozy project to which I referred at the beginning of June (this column described it as “unrealistic and wavering”) have been borne out by several political bodies - a case in point is the debate held by the European Parliament's EPP-ED group in Malta during the first week of July. Parliamentarians from non-neighbouring member states in the Mediterranean have ruled out any financial participation in projects from which they are excluded. This was later confirmed by a number of sources. Above all, the Community considers it generally absurd that part of the EU duplicates European policies that currently exist or which are being examined.
The real objectives of Mediterranean third countries. Misgivings expressed by Mediterranean third countries are no less in short supply either. We shouldn't allow ourselves to be too impressed by a few circumstantial positive sentences. These countries have no intention of creating a genuine Union between them. This is also the reason why, apart from a few MEPs, the Euro-Mediterranean free trade zone up to 2010 is no longer taken seriously. What these countries are interested in, is their bilateral relations with the EU, especially better access for their products to the European market and greater financial support.
In our collaborator Fathi B' Chir's report last July on the EU-Morocco Association Council, he wrote (EUROPE 9475) that Morocco is “more inclined to give preference to bilateral relations rather than be swamped in the diversity of the Euro-Mediterranean area”. Its aim is to obtain an “advanced status” for these relations, which have in fact undergone concrete developments with participation in the Galileo system, the common energy declaration, negotiation of a readmission agreement for immigration, and participation in operation Althéa in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
A similar trend was affirmed by Algeria, whose ambassador to the EU reaffirmed that his country is “sticking to the association agreement” for which an action plan, approved by the EU, had been adopted in an effort to put this agreement into practice “according to national development priorities and a timetable” defined in common. Algeria is also hesitant about free trade even at a bilateral level (EUROPE 9495). It is currently developing a robust energy policy (see the serious disagreements with Spain) by increasing coordination with Russia more than with other Mediterranean countries. Do we need any reminding that the border between Algeria and Morocco has been closed for years? As for the third Maghreb country, Tunisia, the recent ideas expressed by its foreign affairs minister were limited to three demands under EU “neighbourhood policy”: better dialogue (crucial for defining a joint action strategy), European financial support, and a more positive European appraisal of the immigration issue - which in its opinion is an economic development factor for the EU (EUROPE 9495, already mentioned). At the beginning of July, the secretary of state for European affairs, Alem Ben Salem, said the “Barcelona process” had failed: it was more concerned with organising meetings rather than putting sufficiently funded projects into practice.
Nothing exists in Libya yet. The European Commission is planning, if the Council agrees, to negotiate “an association agreement or other form of contractual agreement…This will depend on Tripoli's level of ambition”, explained Director General Eneko Landaburu (EUROPE 9495). European Commissioner Benita Ferrero Waldner indicated at the end of last month the nature and objectives of the new relations the EU and Libya were envisaging and hoping for. Egypt's attitude is not very clear or rather we don't have much to go on in this connection. Turkey, as we are aware, is afraid that the Sarkozy project could lead to an alternative to accession, and doesn't trust it.
Other neighbouring third countries are not currently able to join an effective Euro-Mediterranean Union with institutions capable of decision-making, and are limited to sliding into the rhetoric of positions of principle or ideological quarrels that have for too long made up the lion's share of currently operating organisations' activities.
Neighbourhood policy, more modest but more practical. If reality corresponds to what I have already written, it is understandable that the European Commission is concentrating its efforts on putting “neighbourhood policy” into practice, not only for countries from the East but also with Mediterranean countries that are already prepared to cooperate. This is an essentially bilateral project, therefore more realistic and concrete than a hypothetical Euro-Mediterranean Union, even if the results are less spectacular. Eneko Landabaru spoke about a “stability zone to be accomplished through specific country action plans”. Asked about the Sarkozy project, Commissioner Ferrero Waldner replied diplomatically: “The idea is not yet very precise. We support everything that helps foster cooperation so that the whole of the EU is involved, even if some member states are more interested than others”.
A few corrections. Nicolas Sarkozy partially took these objections into account by correcting his approach somewhat but confirmed the overall vision. In his general speech on 27 August, he laid out his project in the following way: “This does not mean ignoring what has already been achieved. It means going beyond neighbouring countries of our common sea, on the basis of concrete solidarity. I propose building the European Union around four pillars: the environment; dialogue between cultures; economic growth; and security. Let's imagine together, in each of these areas, a number of ambitious but realistic projects, mobilising states, businesses, associations… Naturally, the European Union, through its institutions, notably the Commission, should be a chief actor in the Mediterranean Union”. Sarkozy added: “We now need to prepare a first meeting of heads of state and government in the first half of 2008”.
This will undoubtedly be an attractive ceremony, whose symbolic significance could have some effect. Let's not forget, however, the remark made by the Portuguese minister, Victor Martins Monteiro, who said, obviously on behalf of the presidency of the Council, that it is impossible to launch projects that bring all Mediterranean third countries together without the political problems that already exist between them being resolved beforehand.
Urgency. Negotiations for a formal Mediterranean Union will also require years, when the problems in fact are of a dramatically urgent nature. Some of these problems require immediate concrete cooperation between the EU as it is and neighbouring third countries that want action, whether this is in the environmental, immigration or energy spheres. Overall agreements are to be desired but Europe has to be realistic: for the moment they are inconceivable. The simple opening up of overall negotiations does not constitute a practicable perspective today, except if we resign ourselves to repeating the experiences of the Lisbon process and the numerous bodies, fora and assemblies etc that are sometimes useful for exchanging views and declarations of principle (that are often contradictory) but very removed from obtaining the concrete results we need.
(FR)