The Mediterranean project has become more reasonable and subsequently more acceptable, yet shortcomings in it still remain. The way in which it was originally devised was unrealistic and negative for Europe. The damaging elements have more or less been scratched out but the Union still appears to be a theoretical and inefficient construction, and it is in danger of been launched at the wrong moment. The new make-over should be known by the end of this week when the French president (whose explanations still contain some ambiguities) and German Chancellor announce it at the European spring Council, which will have the chance to discuss it.
Revision agreed. Despite a few uncertainties, the following elements appear to have been agreed:
- the European Council will be directly informed about the project and can debate it. This is more dignified and acceptable than learning about it through a speech, given that the initiative involves the EU as a whole;
- its name will be officially modified. It will no longer be the Mediterranean Union but rather the Union for the Mediterranean. This change had already been agreed last December at the request of Mr Zapatero and Mr Prodi and appeared in the Franco-Italian-Spanish Rome declaration. This semantic tweaking, however, went through almost un-noticed given that just a few days ago, the former French minister for foreign affairs, Hervé de Charette, suggested getting rid of the name “Mediterranean Union, and replacing it with the Council of the Mediterranean”, obviously unaware that the name had already been abandoned;
- all the EU member states will be able to participate in it equally. Some people in Paris, until the very last minute, still sought to distinguish between neighbouring Mediterranean countries and other EU member states, and this attitude still partly persists. The project launch programme was absurd: on 13 July in Paris, neighbouring countries (belonging to the EU or not) would have announced the creation of the new Union and the European Council would have formally acknowledged it the following day. Ms Merkel rejected this a posteriori invitation that would have allowed her to congratulate the new Union after its proclamation, and the programme changed. There will now be a single meeting that will allow for a joint proclamation;
- Community competencies and procedures will be applied in full. The French secretary of state for European affairs, Jean-Pierre Jouyet, (who from the very beginning understood the mistakes in the approach) had already explained on 26 February that all EU countries could take part in the project.
Any Community funding must be decided “in strict respect for European Union rules on decision-making and funding”;
- the new Union will be funded on the cooperation principle and not on that of integration. It will also focus on a limited number of projects such as: removing pollution from the Mediterranean and better use of water resources; energy, especially solar; “motorways of the sea”; civil protection with regard to fires and earthquakes; the possible setting up of a Joint Research Centre. Each country will be able to participate in projects that interest it, in accordance with the variable geometry principle.
Ill-timed? In actual fact, everything the Union could do has already been included in the Barcelona strategy through cooperation agreements and neighbourhood policies, which also contain a lot of other instruments and projects on trade, immigration and cultural dialogue etc. If the new Union is able to bring a further boost to this, then it's welcome.
Although the results have so far been modest, this is not because of a lack of European will, but because of the difficulties on the other side of the Mediterranean. It has been pointed out that Mediterranean third countries constitute the area of the world with the lowest level of cooperation and highest number of divergences - this is where we ought to be starting off from. Enthusiasm for the Sarkozy initiative is very thin on the ground and distrust prevails. Each of these countries' objectives with regard to Europe are very different (see this column in EUROPE 9608, in fine). The time for big unifying ceremonies appears to be untimely. Apart from new developments in relations between Arab countries and Israel, Algeria and Morocco, the Lebanon and Syria, without even mentioning Turkey, which has other goals, or Libya, the solemn ceremony and festivities on 13 July will be in danger of lacking a certain atmosphere.
I'll come back to this when the EU Spring summit conclusions are known.
(F.R.)