The Franco-German misunderstanding. It was mainly down to Angela Merkel that the Mediterranean Union received a correction (EUROPE 9560). France renounced the bizarre idea whereby a certain number of EU member states would make up a “Union” with a group of third countries. It has now been agreed that all member states will be able to participate in initiatives in this arena. There is still, however, a misunderstanding. According to last week's presentation by Nicolas Sarkozy to the press, France and Germany will jointly define a formula opening up the imitative to all member states. Berlin's interpretation is completely different: according to German sources, the Mediterranean Union project has been abandoned. During the Paris press conference, where Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy stood side by side, the Chancellor was unable to contradict the president but her explanation was clear: it's a project that does not hold water. This column had previously said this very clearly but retained the idea, however, that that a relaunch of some of the projects to tackle together remained possible between the EU and Mediterranean third countries. If we want to call that a Union, that's no problem. Berlin, however, clearly used the term “Union” to conclude, there will not be a Mediterranean Union but rather improvements to the “Barcelona process”.
Reasons for the failure. Will the solemn ceremony Paris had planned for June 2008 still be maintained, with an expanded participation, by leaving aside the term Mediterranean Union? It remains to be seen. The uneasiness was already contained in the name: they should have spoken less about a Euro-Mediterranean Union in order to avoid a priori exclusion of countries of the EU that are not in the Mediterranean. This mistake was corrected but fundamental objections persist, which make failure of the ill-conceived Paris project, inevitable. This column criticised these failings at the outset. To summarise: a) the EU has a common trade policy and it constitutes an economic and monetary union, which makes any national negotiations in these fields impossible. Only the EU as it stands can take action; b) Mediterranean third countries do not just have goals of dealing with Europe together; each of them has its own goals and they are a long way off from coinciding with each other.
If we add some more clearly political aspects; Seif al-Islam Kadhafi, the son of Colonel Kadhafi, declared on Sunday that, “the Mediterranean Union proposal from president Sarkozy interests us as long as it does not include Israel”. The Egyptian foreign affairs minister, Ahmed Ali Aboul Gheit last week declared to MEPs that he doubted whether, “Israel and Palestine would be able to be in the same Union”.
The “cultural dialogue” dimension is currently experiencing the same amount of difficulty. It won't be the Commission or European Parliament's initiatives that will succeed in bringing writers, experts and other specialists from the two sides of the Mediterranean together to amend the current situation. A lengthy article signed by Mustapha Chérif, published in the Algerian newspaper, L'expression, criticised the EU for being a closed club that was keeping out young members “who bring their strength and vitality to Europe”. It also criticised the EU for not respecting Muslim immigrants' “right of diversity” and mentioned “prevailing discrimination and Islamophobia, and the rights of Muslims being attacked” including that of being able to practise their religion.
Assessments from this side of the Mediterranean are sometimes different, either in relations to intolerance (see the case involving the Danish cartoons) or the effects of freer immigration. With regard to this last aspect, the EU Economy/Finance Council reached very cautious conclusions; the effects depend on the efforts made by immigrants themselves for integrating and the contribution made by immigration to the pensions solution is, “in the best of hypotheses, marginal”. Pre-conceived ideas are worthless, even when they are backed up by the (absurd) calculations of the UN.
Importance of transparency. A genuine Union is therefore not the right path to follow, especially because the objectives indicated in Nicolas Sarkozy's Tangiers speech are already contained in the European Commission's recent document on the development of EU/Mediterranean third countries, either in the Barcelona process, Neighbourhood Policy, bilateral relations or EIB activities. The French initiative had the benefit of relaunching the debate and placing Euro-Mediterranean relations on centre stage. It's no mean feat. All the evidence, however, would suggest that Mediterranean policy is a European issue and in everybody's interest. (F.R.)
European Parliament Plenary Session