Whatever the opinions Nicolas Sarkozy holds, observers have recognised several qualities in him: dynamism, spirit of initiative and the ability to mobilise people. I'll add another one to the list: a flexibility that enables him to revise his projects and “adjust his sights” in light of comments and criticism. One only has to recall the relaunch of the European debate on a new treaty; his starting point was a mini-treaty, a notion that was logically unacceptable to member states that had ratified the constitutional draft. He then transformed it into a simplified treaty which maintained the progress made and the essential substance of the institutional reforms elaborated by the Convention. This has resulted in public opinion and a significant number of commentators considering Mr Sarkozy as the father of the new treaty, while ignoring the essential role played by Germany and the qualities of all the others (in the European Parliament, the European Institute of Florence or elsewhere) which largely helped plan the shape and contents ahead of what was ultimately retained.
Considerable amendments. Something similar but with a more uncertain outcome is currently being developed with the Mediterranean Union. The announcement focused on a more or less similar accomplishment to that of the EU: it's open to neighbouring countries, without the participation of the Community institutions or non-neighbouring member states. Later, in the light of remarks and criticism, the project was gradually amended by its creator himself to the point that the European Commission now supports it and has affirmed that it “provides prospects”. It has invited the 35 countries involved in the Euromed process to the ministerial conference (meeting on 5-6 November in Lisbon) to explore “the potential” of the Sarkozy initiative and discuss how it “can be articulated” (see EUROPE 9526).
The adjustments introduced by the French president to his project are in fact more radical. In this connection I am going to quote some extracts from the speech he made on 24 October in Tangiers, Morocco.
The Mediterranean Union's aims are vague. It is not modelled on the EU, “with its institutions, its administrations, its high degree of political, legal and economic integration…It is not likely that the Mediterranean Union will resemble the European Union and what it has become. Ultimately, it will be an original and unique development”. Participation will be extended to all EU member states and its institutions: “I will propose that the European Commission is from the outset involved in the Mediterranean Union and that it participates in all its work”. Extended participation will begin at the Euro-Mediterranean summit planned for next June in Paris: “I invite all non-Mediterranean neighbouring member states concerned by its future, to take part as observers in this initial summit and to contribute to its success”. The words “free trade” are not even mentioned and Mr Sarkozy did not provide the list of priority projects that he is advocating and that he made known in his earlier declarations (with the ecological objectives for the Mediterranean sea at the top of the list): “I will propose working on ten or so concrete projects around which future cooperative action will be based. This will not be France's project. This will be everyone's project, elaborated by all…This project can only be created through a common will and shared reflection”.
Limp support, deep-seated reservations. The Tangiers speech, which according to the announcement, was aimed at creating the foundation stones for the Mediterranean Union, has become a rhetorical exercise, full of eloquence and stirring formulas but poor in concrete ideas. Despite its numerous references to the birth of a united Europe, the project is diametrically opposed to the way in which European construction was launched, which involved a limited but clear area for action (coal and steel), with strong and supranational institutions in charge of the practical management of a sector that was strictly defined but strategically important (at that time steel represented the sinews of war). The vague orientation given in the Tangiers speech was undoubtedly dictated by the first reactions of a substantial number of EU member states, Community institutions and Mediterranean third countries themselves. Reservations from the European side were subsequently smoothed over by being transformed into a limp kind of support that is no clearer than the project itself. Third country support creates the impression of being superficial courtesy stemming from the indication of different priorities and demands which go in directions that are very far from the Sarkozy project.
Tomorrow, I'll return to the reactions and criticism of a project that in my opinion is insufficiently thought out.
(F.R.)