Two incompatible orientations. The Forum de Paris positions on the future Union for the Mediterranean (see this column yesterday) are incompatible with the European Council's declaration last month approving a few lines inserting the new project in the framework of the Barcelona process and instructing the Commission to prepare the Euro-Mediterranean summit on 13 July. This orientation gained unanimous support from the EU27 heads of state and government. There is no doubt about the attitude of the French authorities; it is the “Paris declaration” adopted by the Forum that has gone down the wrong track.
The “Community” character (in the sense of the EU's presence as such) has been rejected or minimised by the Paris declaration and approved in a personal capacity by the participants. Henri Guaino was quite explicit: the European Commission will “just prepare the 13 July summit but nothing more after the summit”. The Brussels bureaucracy has been presented as being responsible for the insufficient results from the Barcelona process because it monopolised this framework for dialogue, transforming it into a notification structure for its own decisions. Everything will have to become inter-governmental again.
It is not the orientation of the participants at the European Council on 13 March that is the problem. Angela Merkel spoke about adding a boost to the Barcelona process. Gordon Brown had said that this would get the Barcelona process moving and the whole of the EU27 would take part in it. José Manuel Barroso explained that the Commission would develop proposals by drawing on the very rich experience of the Barcelona process. Nicolas Sarkozy indicated that it was up to the Commission to make proposals on the good governance of the Union for the Mediterranean and to contemplate the setting up of a small secretariat (EUROPE 9623). The 14 March declaration is also explicit: it “calls on the Commission to present the Council with the proposals needed to define the modalities” of the updated process.
The most disconcerting aspect is not the weakening of the European Commission as such but the inter-governmental character of the Paris declaration, whose operational aspect will need to work out an impressive number of new bodies to be set up: a Committee of Wise men (another one!) in charge of independently examining the role of the Union for the Mediterranean project, its outline and contents; a Mediterranean OECD; a Permanent Conference for Peace and Security in the Mediterranean; an Investment Fund for joint partners; a Population Observatory; a Permanent Council of the Mediterranean Regions: a Vocational Training Agency; a Mediterranean Erasmus Programme; a Federation of cultural foundations in the Mediterranean. How many new jobs will need creating? We are bordering on the ridiculous, especially if we add the South-South summit, which is expected to meet before 13 July.
Respecting each other's ambitions. It is true that many projects are needed in the Mediterranean: decontaminating the sea, transport controls, energy cooperation, water programmes etc. They are all, however, covered by existing structures, and the absence of results is down to the failure of all Mediterranean third countries involved in common projects to construct a genuine and comprehensive level of cooperation between themselves. How can a Union be created (with all the different terms this conjures up in Europe) between countries that have such different goals? Croatia is also cited at Paris as one of the countries in the new Union, as well as Turkey and they are both in the middle of negotiating their accession to the EU, which other Mediterranean countries are aspiring towards. The most recent European Commission report on “neighbourhood policy” highlights the very different perspectives of the Mediterranean countries: Morocco is moving towards an “advanced status”, Israel towards a “special status”, Tunisia will soon expand dialogue with the EU in new areas, Egypt still has to implement the institutional framework necessary to collaborate with the Commission; no progress has been indicated regarding Libya and Syria (EUROPE 9635).
The need to improve relations between the EU and Mediterranean third countries is real enough but there is no chance of putting efficient projects into practice within a global setup, with a single co-presidency for all Mediterranean third countries. This is just rhetoric, concrete projects involve such or such a country to begin with or a limited group of countries, with achievable goals. They are already partly up and running or being prepared. France's permanent representative, Ambassador Pierre Sellal, presented the country's orientations for the 13 July Euro-Mediterranean summit. All the participants pointed out that these orientations were in line with the European Council's results. France remains loyal to what was agreed. It is the Forum de Paris that took an unrealistic position. (F.R.)