How can anybody decline to understand? The tendency subsists, in France, to choose not to take account of developments in the planned Union for the Mediterranean and to resuscitate the initial, unrealistic plan. The Forum de Paris, held at the end of March, is clear evidence of this. The summary published by Fathi B'Chir in our bulletin 9633, which is, very properly, impartial, clearly shows that the “Declaration of Paris” adopted at the occasion is highly instructive.
The banality of rhetoric. I read with great interest the entire text of the opening speech by Jacques Attali, plus an interview given by Henri Guaino, the man behind the initial draft. Mr Attali, a man of lively intellect and no shortage of ideas, has one weakness: speaking on subjects which he has not had the opportunity to go into in any great depth. He took the opportunity to deliver an exercise in rhetoric, thick with cultural and historical references, plus an operational suggestion: taxing the maritime traffic on the Mediterranean Sea. He spoke of his ideas on the importance of nomads in the history of civilisation (they invented cities, which is clear, but also the wheel, equestrianism, writing, steel working, porcelain and agriculture), and on the fundamental inventions of the Mediterraneans: monotheism, the market economy, the concept of democracy and the alphabet. He added his own political beliefs (our translation): “Everybody acknowledges that the market economy, when left to its own devices, leads to disaster, inequality, injustice, that it encourages a tendency to speculation, disorder and an absence of governance (…). Without a system of global organisation, democracy itself is no more than a mystification. Everybody also acknowledges that the various sources of monotheism are also sources of violence”. He also took the opportunity to judge Euro-Mediterranean cooperation: “Everything that has been done with the Barcelona process has been a failure”. His suggestions for the future could have been drawn up by a student: he recommends not giving up on the idea of Utopia or the planned Euro-Mediterranean common market; develop the port system of the East Coast (“I am thinking of Gaza, I am thinking of Lebanon, I am thinking of Israel, which will have so much to do together to develop the great port of the East”); make the Mediterranean into a respectable sea, a clean sea; create institutions which are capable of enforcing the law in the Mediterranean. How is all this to be paid for? By taxing maritime transit, as previously mentioned.
I have focused, perhaps beyond what is reasonable, on the opening speech, because it set the tone for all of the debates (with a few exceptions) and the final document. It comes as no surprise that Henri Guaino was very much at home here. There was no written text from him at the Forum, but he did speak the day before (an interview with Le Figaro, 31 March edition). His rhetorical skills did not disappoint. A few examples? In the Mediterranean basin “hangs the future of civilisation, world peace, relations between the three monotheist religions, between the Western world and the Muslim world, between the North and the South”. Wondering about the purpose of the United States and China, Russia and Germany. Beyond this aspect, his starting point for the new Union is to concentrate efforts on a few concrete objectives: cleaning up the Mediterranean, water management, economic development and health.
A model quoted the wrong way round. The example retained for this project, as we know, is that of the joint management of coal and steel, which is how Jean Monnet started off the unity of Europe. Where is the error in this? That the pooling of steel, which represented the vital organs of war at the time, was entrusted to a supranational high authority and, even more so, that this initiative had been preceded, and not followed, by reconciliation between all participants and by their willingness to create a Community. The Monnet project implied the joint desire for unification of Robert Schuman and Konrad Adenauer, of Alcide De Gasperi and Paul-Henri Spaak. However, this desire is completely lacking these days between the Mediterranean countries, separated as they are by open conflict and with radically different ambitions for their relationship with Europe. Turkey and Croatia are working towards accession, Libya is pursuing African ambitions, North Africa is divided. The recent mini-summit of the Arab League confirmed that no unity of this kind exists, even between the Arab countries.
This does not mean that no joint project is possible. The Spring European Council sketched out the outlines of the new form of collaboration, viewing it with the nature of the development of the Barcelona process and tasking the European Commission with preparing for its birth. The Forum de Paris tried to call this way of doing things into question and to return to the initial plan. France must now choose its official line. Tomorrow, I will explain why the two projects are incompatible.
(F.R.)