A reasonable development, but … The French idea of a Mediterranean Union is evolving. It started off as an intergovernmental affair, bringing together all countries bordering on the Mediterranean with its own institutional framework (the EU institutions were not even mentioned). At present, the promoters point out that the composition of a Mediterranean Union could be restricted at the beginning to a limited number of non-EU Mediterranean states; the European Commission would be involved at every stage; the aim would be to set up cooperation on a handful of tangible projects chosen by common agreement without institutional machinery; and all EU member states would be invited to get involved in the operational projects, even if they do not border on the Mediterranean.
This development has made it possible to remove the objections of principle and radical opposition, which have now been replaced by welcoming acceptance and polite wording (compulsory when a project is officially launched by a head of state). The official reaction in Brussels and elsewhere is basically to say that while this initiative helps inject some impetus into an important area of European policy, which has long been bogged down in a quagmire of scepticism and resignation, then why not?
But when push comes to shove, the fundamental objection remains: structural changes to the EU's relationship with non-EU Mediterranean countries necessarily have a European nature for objective reasons. Any trade measures must involve on an obligatory basis the EU as a whole, because the EU forms a customs union. The same applies to other areas where the EU is governed by common rules like for services, transport, financial rules, etc. Some special, specifically regional, projects are possible, but they cannot form a 'Union'.
Reluctance. In addition and more importantly, non-EU Mediterranean states have different objectives and different visions from those of a Union where they would be subject to uniform systems with similar rules for all, because they have different ambitions: Algeria is seeking to make special energy connections and rejects the general free trade idea; Morocco is clearly aiming for a close partnership of its own and nobody else's; Libya's gaze is more turned in the direction of sub-Saharan Africa than with other Mediterranean countries; for a whole raft of countries, the Israeli question is still a priority, Israel is seen by them as more of an invader than a partner; Turkey still mistrusts the proposed Union as a trap, as an alternative to joining the European Union. The unity plans among these countries are in deadlock, whether in terms of the Arab Maghreb Union (in North Africa) which would include Mauritania (which has an Atlantic coastline many miles from the Mediterranean) or the Agadir Agreement (not including Algeria).
If one regards the Maghreb as a unit, the solution is simple - the borders between Morocco and Algeria are closed and the region was recently described as the last integrated region in the world.
Positive moves have been made. This reality does not preclude the existence in the Mediterranean of positive aspects and favourable moves. There are many signs of cooperation between the two sides of the Mediterranean in many fields. This has been achieved in the textiles industry, in various sectors of farming and over the 'accumulation of origin' (a highly specific measure) and also through growing FEMIP investment managed by the EIB. These moves combine to form an encouraging group of measures. But most of this has resulted from one-off measures launched by a handful of ministries and administrative bodies and, first and foremost, among the economic operators directly concerned. The most spectacular aspect - growth in energy cooperation between Algeria and several European countries - remains a strictly national business (with the partial involvement of Tunisia as a transit country) and nobody in Algeria is planning for this national aspect to change.
What can the conferences, big political speeches and parliamentary debates (too closely connected with the conflict in the Middle East, with crowd-pulling demagogy and religious squabbling) actually achieve? Far from helping the process, they sometimes seem to disseminate problems and complications and certainly inefficiency. In a recent meeting (see issue 9537 of our newsletter), the idea of re-launching the UMA (Union du Maghreb Arabe) was mooted. What was the first action carried out by the re-launch? To call for subsidies from the EU to pay for working groups! What the project really needs is political decisions to be taken at the highest level to resolve the conflict between Morocco and Algeria - but instead subsidies are called for to bring together groups of experts….
I do not know whether the solemn ceremony amongst heads of state announced by France to launch the Mediterranean Union in June 2008 will be any more effective. Fine words and calls for cultural dialogue and unity of destinies will no doubt not be lacking. But what then? Despite the adjustments, the idea is a mistake but does have a certain utility, as I will explain tomorrow. (F.R.)