Brussels, 07/01/2009 (Agence Europe) - The decision has been made. On Wednesday, the two co-presidencies indicated that “due to the events in Gaza, all meetings programmed for the Union for the Mediterranean (UfM) have been postponed until further notice”. This was clearly declared by Egypt but also indicated by the Czech Republic and by France. The latter has still kept a hand in although it left the acting presidency of the EU on 31 December at midnight. Henri Guaino, the Elysée's leading UfM figure repeated this on Sunday evening in a debate on the radio (France inter): France is co-president and it is in this capacity that President Sarkozy's visit to the Middle East was justified, although a European Union delegation was already there.
Mr Guaino explained to EUROPE at the ministerial conference in Marseilles that an agreement had been reached with the Czech Presidency on Paris remaining a delegation of power within the co-presidency.
Mr Guaino suggested that a similar agreement had been envisaged with the following presidency, Sweden. According to certain sources, Stockholm does not intend to abandon its right as it has (just like Finland) a good attendance record at Euro-Mediterranean meetings. What member state is in charge of the UfM co-presidency in the first half of this year? Nobody is daring to say, even though the facts indicate that France appears to be at the controls. In Marseilles, it was officially written that this responsibility should be “compatible with the external representation of the EU in compliance with the provisions of the treaty in force”. Delays in implementation of the Lisbon Treaty (even an amended treaty) allow for different interpretations and, in the absence of effective collective diplomacy, Paris has opted for an interpretation that conforms with its political objectives that give primacy to member states neighbouring the Mediterranean.
Concern has been expressed by almost all the actors in the UfM. On the question of “What address will you put on your letters to the co-presidencies?” Cairo and Prague clarified to us that copies are systematically addressed to Paris, Stockholm and the Secretariat of the Council. This attitude does not compromise any of the future choices and it is pointed out that it creates a degree of institutional curiosity without having any real repercussions. The previous formula of the European troika will be on the agenda. This has moved on from the three countries making up the troika (the acting presidency, the presidency that follows and the previous one) to the more recently devised formation of the acting presidency, the high representative for the CFSP and the European commissioner in charge of the dossier. During its visit to the Middle East, the European delegation mixed up the two formulas which resulted in the troika becoming a quintet. This also applied to the way in which the dialogue between the EuroMed was conducted, even if the UfM did actually get started.
The postponement of all meetings due to the situation in Gaza cannot hide the fact that doubts are mounting on the visibility of this dialogue. One diplomat from the southern bank of the Mediterranean outlined the many points of divergence still on the table and indicated that “they killed the Barcelona process without really replacing it”. With regard to the status of the secretariat, the meeting that should have tackled the question on 16 January has been cancelled, and we know that Algiers is questioning the fact that the structure will be more “political” than “technical”. With the agreement on the centre of the organisation being in Barcelona, negotiations were not completed because of the internal legal obstacles Spain had promised to resolve. Funding? Uncertain. The agenda is still a blank. Senior officials are expected to create some points on it on 22 January in Prague, following the recommendations made in Marseilles at the beginning of November. The postponement will not help matters.
The Parliamentary Assembly is scattered everywhere and its calendar only contains a joint meeting of its political and culture committees on 28 January to discuss “the dialogue between civilisations”. This agenda appears to be a staggered one, given the current circumstances. EMPA silence has already been pointed out while a major conflict is pitting two of its members against each other in Gaza. There has so far been no joint text calling for good sense or calm. Some of the members of this joint Euro-Mediterranean structure recognise that the decision-making process is complex and cumbersome and point to the stultifying period experienced during the Lebanon crisis. (F.B./transl.rh)