Two differing tendencies. Alongside the official texts and declarations, the birth of the Union for the Mediterranean has led to positions being taken by academia, non-governmental commentators and organisations and other figures from the Mediterranean third countries, particularly from the Arab world, with two major tendencies emerging: one welcoming the tightening of links with Europe but expressing confusion and criticism of the Union project as it stands; the other reproaching the EU, sometimes acerbically, for using the new Union to extend its collaboration with dictatorships and anti-democratic regimes, with this second trend supported by European and Euro-Mediterranean human rights networks.
I will cite a few examples based on texts published in the European press, although I am aware that the authors do not have the same level of importance or influence in terms of audience. The writer Moncez Marzouki is representative of the radical rejection of the Union. He says that European support for Mr Mubarak as co-President of the Union “will make the situation of Arab democrats more difficult”. The current authorities “will make the structure into a money pit and an additional framework for police cooperation”. At best, nothing concrete will come of it apart from “offices closed for holidays without end”, as one can only trust dictators “when it comes to blocking and suppression”. He points out that “European unity only took off after the fall of the Nazi and fascist regimes” and that Spain and Portugal only joined when their dictatorships came to an end; political unions cannot be formed with partners who are at war, whether actively or latently. Peace, freedom and democracy are needed first.
By contrast, according to Mustapha Cherif, a former Algerian minister who describes himself as an “islamologist”, Europe's attitude is characterised by “a triptych: outrageous secularism, dehumanising scientism, wild capitalism”. He denounces Europe's refusal to “acknowledge the deeds and misdeeds of European colonisation”, and advocates “a partnership between the European Union and the Arab world”, regretting that that concepts of the Arab world and the Maghreb seem to have been shrugged off (which is a geographical interpretation of the Union for the Mediterranean which is far from the official one).
Ali Bensaad from the Institute for Research and Study into the Arab and Islamic World (University of Provence) attributes the failure of Euro-Mediterranean initiatives to the lack of real efforts in favour of development, when there is no security without development. The lack of funding, in his view, explains the lack of success in the whole process and the bitterness of the Southern countries. He stresses the need to manage the Mediterranean as a common human area, whereas Europe is moving in the direction of “ever-increasing border closure (…) which humiliates citizens and leaders from the South”. The tendency to consider the free movement of people as the main aspect of a true union of the countries of both sides of the Mediterranean is one shared by several commentators.
For reciprocal efforts. I should highlight the (to the best of my knowledge )most important of the joint texts, that is those signed jointly by figures from Europe and from Mediterranean third countries: the declaration written by European writer Erik Orsenna and by Akram Belkaid, and signed by (among others): from the European side Elisabeth Guigou, Alain Juppé, Romano Prodi, Chris Patten; from the other side the former Algerian Prime Minister Mouloud Hamrouche, former Moroccan minister Fathallah Oualalou, former President of Mauritania Ould-Mohamed Vall, and Kemal Davis, administrator of the United Nations Development Programme. This text demands a “dialogue without taboo on the mobility of populations (…) a key issue in the Southern countries where there are grave restrictions on movements towards Europe, while at the same time the new migration policies implemented deprive them of their elites”, and concluding: “How can we talk about a Union to populations who will be forced to stay in their own countries?”. Nonetheless, the signatories also stress the need for the Southern countries to unite among themselves: “There will be no point to the Union for the Mediterranean unless the Southern countries strive to integrate their economies and abolish restrictions on the movement of goods and people.” Those countries should “launch strong South-South political initiatives, such as opening up the borders between all the countries of the region and the free movement of people and goods”.
The conclusions emerging from this overview are not, in my view, encouraging. A true Union for the Mediterranean will not happen overnight. I will come back to the reasons why.
(F.R.)