The launch ceremony is approaching but the Mediterranean Union project is still creating the same concerns. Despite some efforts at presentation, it contains the same weaknesses as when it was announced by Nicolas Sarkozy: rhetoric, confusion, badly devised. The fact that Germany and other EU countries are not pleased with it is well known, but the Mediterranean third countries it addresses like it even less.
Misleading name, non-existent contents. Weaknesses actually begin with the term “Union”, the same term to describe the European Union: more over, the Mediterranean Union does not have the same aims at all. This would not mean much were if not for the semantic shortcoming made worse by the mistakes and inaccuracies concerning its aims. In actual fact, everything important about Euro-Mediterranean relations depends on the EU as a whole and cannot be managed by the Mediterranean countries alone. The external tariff and common trade policy rules out any measure on trade (a hypothetical trade negotiation would result in the absurd situation of introducing barriers within the EU itself). The same goes for regulation on investment and capital flows, the right of establishment, free movement of services, corporate law and of course, such sensitive areas as fisheries. Only the EU is able to discuss these matters. The EU is also currently examining common provisions on immigration: any separate measures would make a functioning Schengen area impossible. In the field of financial cooperation and support for projects of common interest, it would be absurd to create new instruments that duplicate the tasks of the EU, which has a budget, a bank and expertise. Using EU resources for the new Union is unthinkable because non-Mediterranean member states would never agree that resources and instruments are used for funding that is prepared and decided on without their participation.
The project devised in Paris is therefore insufficiently thought out, it is rhetorical and unacceptable to non-Mediterranean countries of the EU. Added to the factual observations, are the political considerations (which Ms Merkel and the European Parliament have highlighted several times) based on the absurdity of imagining that an essential plank of EU foreign policy could be managed by Mediterranean neighbouring countries alone.
Re-orientating the project? It is true that within the French government itself, there have been some people speaking out about reorientating the project and making it more reasonable. Secretary of State for European Affairs Jean-Pierre Jouyet was very frank in his declaration to Le Figaro: “We should not begin building a project in parallel to the EU. We have to ensure that no strategic decisions are made”. He then outlined what a reasonable project would be and ruled out the idea of a “project of civilisation” because “the great project of civilisation is European”. The French presidency of the EU (which will coincide with the ceremony marking the launch of the Mediterranean Union, planned for 13-14 July in Paris) has to serve the ends of this project totally: the idea of a new Union would damage the credibility of the French presidency of the EU, which has to be “ambitious and ensure continuity in European dossiers, while providing the necessary impetus”. The new initiative should be complementary to policies that already exist, drawing from them and focusing on a few concrete projects (“three to five, no more”) in which Mediterranean third countries that want to can participate. As we see, we are no way near a “Union”.
But this moderated vision is not shared by everyone in Paris. This column has a rule about never intervening in internal questions of member states. However, in this specific case, the French themselves have brought the dossier to a European level. The creator of the Mediterranean Union is known and he is even being challenged within the government itself. He's called Henri Guaino and he is a “special advisor” to Nicolas Sarkozy. He drafted, or at least inspired, the presidential speech launching the project. The historical and cultural part didn't raise any objections but the operational follow-up envisaged was challenged from the very beginning. It was pointed out that Mr Guaino had voted against the Maastricht Treaty and the Constitutional Treaty and that he is a “proud to be a sovereignist”. Alain Lamassoure declared to a group of journalists that “there is a problem with Henri Guaino. He claims to be a universal spirit and he has a very high opinion of himself. But he has no influence at all on France's European policy” (interview published by Maroun Labaki in Le Soir). Under the cover of anonymity, a senior official from Brussels (a term which generally covers senior Commission officials or an ambassador based in Brussels) spoke out on a number of European issues, “Every time the president has to choose, he has not followed Guaino…the Europhile line is prevailing and very well represented at the Elysée as at the ministries”. And a number of significant examples are cited.
Several uncertainties remain. Currently, nothing is clear about the Mediterranean Union project and the summit meeting due to launch it, despite the “mini-mission” of Prime Minister François Fillon to the European Parliament having calmed certain matters down and provided a degree of clarity (see EUROPE yesterday). This visit is expected to have an impact in Paris itself.
According to a European Policy Centre (EPC) study, written by Rosa Balfour and Dorothée Schmid, three options will be discussed at the French foreign affairs department: a) a project limited to west Mediterranean countries; b) a project open to all Mediterranean countries, including the Balkans; c) a project expanded to all EU member states, as well as countries from the Gulf. The EPC study says that the solution would probably include all Mediterranean neighbouring countries, as well as Portugal, Mauritania and Jordan, and also the presidency of the Council of the EU, the European Commission and Arab League etc as full members. Other EU member states would be invited on the second day.
In an interview with the Confrontations Europe publication (January/March 2008 issue), the French ambassador in charge of the project, François Gouyette explained: “The project is devised as a union of Mediterranean countries and is based on an inclusive process - each country will participate in it on a voluntary basis and will choose the projects that suit it. This involves a parity of approach between equals”. In relation to the EU, “the European Commission will be a full member of the future Union and the European institutions will be represented at the constitutive summit in July. Other countries are welcome, particularly non-Mediterranean European countries”. I think we get it: they'll be invited to the ceremony but will not be “full members” like the Commission. The ambassador believes that this project will strengthen the “dynamic of the Barcelona process by reaffirming the priority of the Mediterranean in EU external policy”. We then have to ask ourselves why it shouldn't be the EU tackling the matter. The distinction between the 13 July meeting, reserved for Mediterranean countries, and the big ceremony the following day, was confirmed by Alain Lamassoure (this EUROPE yesterday).
Ambassador Gouyette stressed that “this project first of all has the merit of putting the Mediterranean region back at the centre of European concerns”. This is also the opinion of certain observers. I doubt that this merit is an obvious one. Experience proves that big ceremonies in which Arab countries and Israel take part and where public speeches are made, are often used by demagogues and sometimes as a platform for excessive speechifying, as the Euro-Mediterranean parliamentary meetings testify. In Paris this July, everyone will be making a speech but the relaunch and concrete progress in cooperation will be done elsewhere as long as the political situation remains the same.
Mediterranean countries don't believe in it. I'm now coming to the second plank: Mediterranean third countries do not aspire to being considered as a single entity in any way. In their relations with Europe, they have ambitions and interests that are different and sometimes divergent. In the founding speech of Nicolas Sarkozy, Turkey identified a trap in the project: replacing its EU accession with participation in a Union that is not the EU and where it would be on the same footing as other Mediterranean countries. A few polite phrases that followed have not changed Ankara's lack of interest or distrust with the project. Its goal remains EU accession. Morocco openly declared that it was aiming for a special bilateral relationship with the EU. It believes that the foundations for this have already been built and does not believe in a Union that includes all Mediterranean countries (except for a common project to clean up the pollution in the sea). Algeria has its own policy, dictated by its situation of major oil product provider to Europe; a free trade zone does not interest the country (oil and gas are not subject to any restrictions); it has even rejected neighbourhood policy. Several other countries consider belonging to the Arab League or African Union as being more important than the Mediterranean factor.
What works. There is no inter-Mediterranean organisation that really works. Even the borders between certain countries are closed, such is the level of the political and territorial divergences (as between Morocco and Algeria). This does not mean that the prospects are at all negative or progress inexistent. The contrary is true. What works is not the great unifying projects, because no desire for global unity exists but rather the practical and more modest relations based on the shifting situation and real interests. Two examples: a) the Agadir Agreement, which is very often ignored and which aims to actually build a first common market on the Southern side of the Mediterranean between Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt and Jordan. It involves practical considerations such as: the cumulation of rules of origin, cooperation between economic investors, investments etc. b) the CIHEAM, a body in which thirteen Mediterranean countries (including members of the EU) are organising cooperation in agriculture.
These accomplishments do not inspire the purple prose of Mr Guaino but they are useful as we await better things. (F.R.)