Brussels, 10/07/2008 (Agence Europe) - President Sarkozy is convening a meeting in Paris on Sunday 13 July for the heads of state and government of 43 countries of the EU and the Mediterranean rim, including the Balkans, the final draft declaration reads. In total, 44 or 45 heads of state are expected to attend if one adds France, which strangely enough does not appear on the list, and Monaco, which is a member. Serbia and Macedonia have finally been excluded as they are not rim countries, but Montenegro, Bosnia, Croatia and Albania are among those invited around the table as full members. In principle, all those invited will attend, except - with certainty - Kadhafi, who sees the project for a Unoin for the Mediterranean as a war machine against Arab and African “solidarities”. The Jordanian sovereign will be unable to attend having prior commitments towards Washington. Syrian President Bashar el Assad will be pleased to leave the marginal position in which he was consigned for his role in Lebanon, to the point that the association agreement remains on the shelf. The Turkish prime minister entertains the doubt and does not seem to want to be involved to any great extent in a project that had originally been presented as an alternative to membership. The Israeli prime minister, as well as the Tunisian, Mauritanian, Lebanese and Egyptian presidents, seems more convinced. Tunis hopes to host the seat of the secretariat whose establishment is postponed to a more appropriate time. Hosni Moubarak is promised the post of first UfM “co-president”, practically designated by his French counterpart. The other southern rim countries grumbled about this first breach in the principle of co-decision and “ownership”, that President Sarkozy himself had made the main argument in favour of his project. They were compelled to give way to the ritual of consensus, which is customary within the Arab League, mainly because none of the other heads of state could have taken on this role that entailed direct discussion with the Israeli head of state. Turkey, also, had begun to show grudging reluctance but gave way probably more through disinterest than through conviction. For the others, it will be necessary to wait and see who is present in Paris. The Élysée seems, however, to be convinced that nearly everyone will turn up at the meeting, including the King of Morocco. However, if rumours are right, it will be his brother or prime minister who will be there in his stead. Morocco has been careful to differentiate its own role and, in the context of UfM, plans to obtain the post of secretary general. The main exploit was by the Algerian president who lay into the UfM tooth and nail. His spectacular turnaround, announced in Tokyo on the sidelines of the G8, is no doubt due to the promise that there will be no “family photo” with Ehud Olmert.
The confusion over the list of participants also covers the official name to be given to the project, but it does not clarify whether it is a new joint institution or a “Barcelona +”. The choice of denomination was the focal point of the latest wrangling over the content of the final declaration which was negotiated during high level sessions of senior officials convened at an intensive rate over the last few weeks. A final meeting is envisaged in Paris on the eve of the “summit”. During the morning of 13 July, foreign ministers will put the final touches to this text whose general tone - except for a list of projects to be studied - strengthens the feeling that the major meeting in Paris will only be an “empty shell”, as one Algerian daily put it, or simply a “ceremony” as another media said. Several sources bear witness to the fact that negotiation of the text did not focus very much on matters of substance but on the question of denomination and on the chapter relating to the peace process, two subjects that are in fact connected. Arab countries were reluctant to accept the term “Union”, considering it inappropriate in a context that also involves Israel. They finally came down on the side of the most general opinion and agreed to what the more scholarly called the “binomen”. This two-part name - “Barcelona Process - Union for the Mediterranean” - was the major innovation produced by the European Council in March which, in a very concise text, had endorsed the French project to make it a Community initiative whose form (that Maghrebin ambassadors hoped would be burial as they were disappointed to see the change in nature of the original project) would be up to the European Commission. The solution found by the European Council showed that it was the result of a laborious compromise resulting from the fact that the Elysée gradually gave up its initial pretentions between the Toulon speech in February 2007 in the middle of the electoral campaign, the tense wrangling with an openly hostile Germany, and the three-way declaration in Rome (between France, Italy and Spain) on 20 December 2007. The French president had had to acknowledge, at the request of the German Chancellery, that all EU member states and not just Mediterranean rim countries of the EU should be included in the project. He had already agreed in Rome to amend the label given to the project, and the Union “for” the Mediterranean thus replaced the other, ambitious, “Mediterranean Union”. Spain and Italy have played a vital role in this development of the French initiative. These two countries as well as Greece and, with less ardour, the other rim countries (Portugal and Malta) showed embarrassed enthusiasm. Pleased that the region had thus been replaced at the heart of the European debate, they did not, however, approve distancing the northern EU countries. Nearly all member states recognised the need to breathe new life into the Barcelona process which, in 14 years, has lost its vigour, being victim not only to a blocking of the peace process but also to working methods which lacked major dimensions of parity and co-responsibility. These failings of the Euro-Mediterranean process were what in fact motivated President Sarkozy's initiative but he, too, had sometimes omitted to consult his potential partners. He was reproached for this from the outset by leaders of the southern rim, who also regretted that he had himself chosen the co-president of the other side, flouting all parity. The essential thing is that, finally, according to the term used by one of the senior officials, everyone “made the most of it”, convinced that it will not go further than 14 July. The European Commission visibly adopted this way of looking at things from the outset, choosing not direct confrontation with a project aimed at making it relinquish its prerogatives under the Barcelona process, but rather choosing to accompany it in the aim of gradually “toning it down” to reduce it to its most simple expression: a diplomatic meeting, far from the initial ambition of a “summit” for founding a new Union.
The draft final declaration clearly shows this by being no more than a catalogue of “good intentions”. It comprises the statement of principles already affirmed in Barcelona 14 years ago, including the (bitterly negotiated) chapter on the question of the Middle East. The primacy of Israeli security and of the powerful link with Europe is the central axis. The EU clearly points this out in its commitment for a negotiated solution and the end of the Palestinians' ordeal (mainly economic). At the general economic level, the main objectives of the cooperation already underway (free trade area as of 2010, support for regional integration, political dialogue and human rights, etc) have been confirmed. A list of projects is presented and will be studied by the joint structures to be set in place. It covers decontamination of the Mediterranean, maritime and overland motorways, alternative energies (solar especially), civil protection programmes, education, research and universities, and a framework for corporate activity. The two points still outstanding concern the choice of co-presidents and the creation of a secretariat and a permanent joint committee based in Brussels. Hosni Moubarak has been given the assurance that he will receive a 2-year term of office, despite some reservation, especially from the Turkish side, but which has since been lifted. For the European co-president, who at any rate will be the president of the Elysée - as initiator of the UfM and president-in-office of the EU - the duration of the mandate seems to have been restricted to the six months of European rotating presidency, in line with the treaties. The matter of the secretariat is still open. Tunis and Rabat are vying with each other for this structure's head office, whose mandate would be limited to the administration of joint projects. The general steering of the process, however, will be entrusted to the joint committee that will only be the latest manifestation of the current follow-up committee or, officially, the “Euromed Committee”. (F.B./transl.jl)