Brussels, 27/11/2007 (Agence Europe)- Jean-Pierre Jouyet, French Secretary of State for European Affairs, presented the Mediterranean Union (MU) project proposed by President Nicolas Sarkozy to the political affairs committee of the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly (EMPA) on Monday 26 November. The chairperson of this joint parliamentary committee, Tokia Saifi (EPP-ED, France) highlighted the fact that this is the first time that France has debated this within the Community institutions and in particular within a joint institution which brings together elected representatives from both national and European parliaments of the EU and from the countries around the Mediterranean. In his presentation, Mr Jouyet chose to first recall “the foundations” of the project “before coming to the method and content”, which were the subject of numerous questions in the debate which followed.
In general terms, Mr Jouyet observed, “throughout the world the major powers are cementing relations to the south” and Europe is, in his view “behind” in this respect. He also noted that the Mediterranean is the only area in the world without a structured dialogue mechanism and remains the least integrated, a “shortcoming to be rectified”. He highlighted the feeling of “inadequacy” among partner countries in the face of developments with the Barcelona process. One of its shortcomings is the fact that it did “not highlight the need for a more rapid public-private partnership”. It was, he said, “out of this observation that the desire was born to create a specific framework for the Mediterranean” while “all the attempts to revitalise (the Barcelona process) have not succeeded”. It is “from the outside that we think we can relaunch the EuroMed process”. The “approach is fully understood by the European Commission and the partner countries, whose reactions have been positive” as regards the creation of what, as Mr Jouyet pointed out, Minister Moratinos has called “Barcelona+”, to “give a new impetus” to EuroMed relations.
As for the practical arrangements, these have mostly been presented already: light structures, concrete projects in specific target areas such as energy, transport, security, natural disaster prevention, education, etc. France will favour “informal relations”, using the G8 and its rotating presidencies as a reference. In order to fund such projects, the MU “is not designed to have the right to draw on Community funds” but will have access to these funds within “the normal rules and procedures”, in open discussions with the European Commission. And “there will be other means of financing”, the minister said, citing the major donors to international funds and contributions from private, European, Arab or international sources. “There are plans for the creation of a Mediterranean bank, its launch will depend - in the form yet to be given it - on open discussions with all the protagonists. All of the partners will be involved, including the Commission, the European Parliament and the EMPA”. For the countries themselves, on both sides, “participation will be voluntary” and those involved will not necessarily be the same at all times, depending on the topics being dealt with. Beyond these projections, the minister preferred to speak less of what the MU will be - an open project - and more of what it will not be. “It will not be a war machine against the EU and the Barcelona process, it will not ignore the existing frameworks, but rather will use them, and it will not impinge on bilateral links” between the EU and each of the Mediterranean third countries.
The subsequent debate revealed a large degree of support, albeit with some reservations on the details and, in some cases, on the approach itself, notably the fear expressed by Ramon Obiols (PES, Spain) and Hélène Flautre (Greens, France) that this initiative, born in an electoral context, should not create confusion. Mr Obiols borrowed a phrase from Jacques Delors to use as a recommendation, “simplify, simplify and simplify”, also stating the “bafflement” he felt at the omission of the neighbourhood policy in Paris' evaluation of the EU's Mediterranean policy. Ms Flautre wondered what the place of issues to do with human rights and civil society would be. Palestinian representative Tayssir Koubaa thought that in order to be “credible and serious” the initiative should concern itself with the situation in the Middle East. This position was shared by the representative from Syria. Greek parliamentarian Atheneios Florinis pledged the full support of his country's parliament (which is currently presiding over the EPMA) for the initiative. The MU should be “oriented towards action and not towards reaffirming the theses which have paralysed the Barcelona process”. Parity and ownership must also be promoted, he said. A Turkish representative stressed the “historical failing” of the EU's disregard for the Mediterranean region. “There is a lack of [strategic] vision” which the French project might address, subject to further clarification. One merit would be to envisage the “extension” of Europe to the Mediterranean. And, added Luisa Morgantini (GUE, Italy), the hope is that the Mediterranean Union is not reduced to a “disappearing act” for the Turkish question. A “fear of a plethora of frameworks and structures” seemed to be leading her to cautiously support the project and she furthermore expects the MU to solve economic and social problems. Finnish and Tunisian representatives raised the issue of financing and its sources. The Algerian, Moroccan and Egyptian representatives gave their backing to the project without taking anything away from their commitment to the Barcelona process, with a recommendation for further clarification and a awareness of how to avoid the obstacles at which the Barcelona process has stumbled.
When asked by EUROPE, Mr Jouyet stated that the group of three ambassadors (from France, Italy and Spain) was due to meet in the next few days and that the Commission would be involved in their work. (F.B.)