Real obstacles. Nicolas Sarkozy's speech in Tangiers on the Mediterranean Union was most enthralling and was even, at certain moments, moving. The French president indicated that Morocco was the meeting place between Europe and Africa, Christianity and Islam, the centre of a great Arab-Hispanic civilisation, a country whose people had never persecuted anyone, had only ever fought to be free and which had protected the Jews when they had been hunted down and exterminated. According to Mr Sarkozy, all Mediterraneans dream of peace and fraternity, and Europe's future is the South - by turning its back on the Mediterranean, Europe would cut itself off from its intellectual, moral and spiritual sources and especially from its future. Sarkozy affirmed that “within every man and every woman living on the banks of the Mediterranean lives the memory and yearning for the unity lost 15 centuries ago”. This speech, which was announced as being the founding message of the Mediterranean Union, received the praise it deserved. But his incantations do not appear to have either bewitched or seduced countries from the other side of the Mediterranean.
What weaknesses has the Mediterranean Union project been criticised for? Over the 20 years and more of Euro-Mediterranean cooperation, initiatives have certainly not been lacking in assemblies, bodies, programmes, colloquia etc. Despite the adjustments made (see this column yesterday), we have to ask ourselves what this planned Union will really bring that is new. We are unable to see how it can overcome the obstacles hampering the implementation of what already exists. The first obstacle is the absence of unity and common orientations between Mediterranean third countries. They can't agree among themselves, the cooperation between them is very limited, trade among themselves insignificant, and they are not managing to overcome the divergences and fractures separating them. The Euro-Mediterranean zone is wishful thinking and will continue to be so as long as the trade barriers remain between these countries: by keeping it among short term objectives (2010) the importance of the words is lost. The border between Algeria and Morocco is closed due to territorial conflict over the Western Sahara. Libya has never agreed to participate in the “Barcelona Process”. To talk about unity with Syria (it's been said that it is dreaming of a Union in which part of Iraq and even Iran belong), Palestine, Lebanon, Jordan and Israel, beggars belief. And what should be said about Turkey? With its dreams of joining the EU, it has no intention of being involved in a block of countries that is not effectively a block, when it has already far exceeded the degree of economic cooperation with the EU that constitutes an objective or dream of Mr Sarkozy's Mediterranean Union. Let's not forget that Turkey and the EU form a customs union, a real situation that goes much further than a free trade zone.
It is true that Nicolas Sarkozy himself has spoken about “geometrically variable” ambitions in accordance with the country and different domains, beginning with the maritime environment (making the Mediterranean the cleanest sea in the world), energy, transport and water. But the countries of the South, however, are seeking deeper bilateral relations with the EU and their objectives are not all the same.
A divided Maghreb. After listening to the speech of the French president in Tangiers, the king of Morocco described the project for a Mediterranean Union as being “visionary and bold” but also called for it to be “perfectly articulated with the consolidation of the Barcelona process”. He especially insisted on “Morocco's legitimate goal of obtaining an advanced status soon” in its bilateral relations with the EU. Morocco wants a roadmap for access to the European internal market and common sectoral policies. In a multilateral context, these goals would be indefinitely held up, when in September the Moroccan foreign affairs minister appealed for an acceleration and deepening of bilateral ties by calling for “a much more accelerated rhythm and more consistent agenda that goes beyond the current association” (See EUROPE 9495).
Algeria does not intend to participate in the project (theoretically) for a global free trade zone and neither is it interested in “neighbourhood policy”. It doesn't even want bilateral free trade and believes that direct competition between its still weak companies and the European giants would be unfavourable. Its objectives are essentially dictated by its position as a big exporter of gas and oil to Europe. It is aiming for cooperation and direct sales of its hydrocarbons on the European market (the Russian example has not been unhelpful). This is why Algeria regards regulatory difficulties and “discrimination” in these areas as priorities. The bilateral association agreement with the EU (with its action plan and timetable, jointly agreed) is considered by Algiers as being sufficient and more concrete than hypothetical multilateral understandings, which are naturally, less specific.
It should not be forgotten that Algeria is, overall, the country that has suffered most from Islamic terrorism: attacks, loss of lives, cruelty against civilians, entire zones in the country controlled for certain periods by terrorists. Even if there are some denunciations of abuses committed by the secret services of the country, the fact remains that the Algerian authorities have had to deal with the most fanatical and murderous form of Islamism. In the past they criticised the excessive freedom given by European countries to Islamic propaganda as well as their assurances of protection for terrorists. It is clear to what extent the Algerian attitude differs from that of other Mediterranean countries.
Tunisia's priority is direct cooperation with the EU and European support (with the appropriate financial means) for its reforms and economic development.
The situations with other Mediterranean third countries are different and largely determined by the conflict with Israel. Assemblies and bodies which bring Arab countries and Israel together already exist and the results are hardly grounds for rejoicing: some of the debates do not go beyond trading accusations and there is sometimes a boycott on any decisions being made. It's impossible to see what next June's summit might herald, other than speeches and declarations of principle, in the absence of preliminary political developments
Expectations. It is obvious that the Europeans want to improve dialogue with Mediterranean third countries and put the projects into practice. No-one is opposed to a new initiative in this respect and the turnabout in the attitude of the European Commission yesterday indicates this. Perplexities persist. The Portuguese presidency of the Council has obviously not expressed any criticism or scepticism but regularly ensures that Euro-Mediterranean bodies are up and running without taking into account the Sarkozy project. The results of some meetings have a bizarre taste to them because they are so far from reality. For example, trade ministers from the two parties meeting on 21 October in Lisbon confirmed the 2010 deadline for the Euro-Mediterranean free trade zone to be implemented, whilst forgetting that this accomplishment is underpinned by the integral free movement of goods between Mediterranean third countries. Peter Mandelson made a timely reminder that an FTZ (free trade zone) involves a single trade region and we cannot consider Euro-Mediterranean trade in this light with two regions, the EU on one side and Mediterranean third countries, on the other. Can ministers directly responsible for trade actually ignore this detail? Mr Mandelson's remarks were an attempt at being positive but they cannot conceal reality, “North Africa is the least integrated region in the world” (EUROPE 9529).
European Parliament keeping to general ideas. Until now, the European Parliament does not appear to have brought many serious contributions to developments in these dossiers. Empty phrases and rhetoric prevail at Strasbourg, despite some efforts, here and there, by Béatrice Patrie, for example (who dreams of secular élites emerging in Muslim countries, while ignoring the election results) or Kader Arif in his address to the summit of the economic and social organisations of the two parties. On this same occasion, the president of the Egyptian Parliament, Fathi Sourour, dared denounce the danger involved in involving civil society in the process, which he said would pave the way ahead for “forces of religious extremism” and compromise mutual understanding and dialogue (EUROPE 9524). The president of the Parliament, Hans-Gert Pöttering, has just declared that “the Mediterranean Union should not give rise to a confusion of terms; there is no possible comparison with the EU. A partnership meets other criteria”.
The work of some groups of experts is astoundingly banal. The conclusions of a study carried out by an experts' group were summed up by their chairman, Jean-Louis Reiffers - “Three conditions must be satisfied to decide on the validity of the Sarkozy project: that there is a real concept and substance; that it is coherent with what already exists; and that financial resources are sufficient”. The study must have been a really profound one to come up with results like that.
French episodes. Even in France, the launch of the project underwent a number of different episodes. The chronicles indicate that three figures were contacted to ensure the preparations and launch: Michel Rocard, Alain Juppé and Jack Lang. The first two refused but Jack Lang indicated that he would be available in the cultural arena. It has fallen to Henri Guaino, special advisor to Nicolas Sarkozy (he is being given credit for writing the presidential speech in Tangiers), to prepare the Mediterranean summit next June. He is considered to be very keen on the traditional role of his country, especially in Africa, and not very concerned by European integration. We'll see.
(F.R.)