Simply rhetoric? The term “Union” is steeped in meaning for Europe. The details and goals may vary but the principle is clear: a zone where goods move freely, as well as people and capital and where common and capable institutions make decisions. The Union for the Mediterranean (UfM) does not fulfil the conditions of this model not even in its objective for the future.
A major free-trade zone is generally considered as the basis of any union but cannot be envisaged for this case because Mediterranean third countries do not intend to carry this out between themselves. At the very most, they will attempt to put it into practice with the EU at a bilateral level. Some countries have already achieved this (Turkey), some countries are moving in this direction (Morocco and Tunisia at the head of them), while Algeria is not interested. There is absolutely no project to achieve this, except through small groups of countries. The borders between some of them are closed and cannot be crossed! The large free-trade zone is nothing but a rhetorical device that the European Parliament proclaims in some of its resolutions. What the non-EU Mediterranean countries want is, with a few specific exceptions, bilateral access to the European market. This trade fracture has direct repercussions on investment. An EU company could envisage setting up production on the southern side of the Mediterranean if a large market corresponding to the whole of the zone were open to it; but no significant investment can be justified for a small national market. Hence, European investments go elsewhere.
Overall, the idea of common negotiations for their relations with the EU is not even taken on board by these countries, given the scale of their different goals: accession for Turkey and the Balkan countries; special and very close relations for Morocco and Israel; economic cooperation without free-trade for Algeria and so on and so forth. Each position is understandable and at a bilateral level progress has sometimes been quite remarkable with positive prospects but the goals and results have no relationship whatsoever with the goal of creating any union.
Valuing human capital. Given these observations, a number of observers, especially in the Muslim intellectual world, believe that priority attention ought to focus on the free movement of persons, the valuing of “human capital” as part of the double goal of positively using demographic complementarity (the number of young people is falling in Mediterranean Europe but rising in its southern counterpart) and promoting the dialogue of cultures in an effort to improve mutual understanding. The benefit of this aspect of Euro-Mediterranean cooperation was recognised by Eneko Landaburu, the Commission's Director General for “external relations” and last November, the EIB (European Investment Bank) organised a seminar to clarify finance opportunities (FEMIP mechanism) in the domain of education and training (EUROPE 9788). Nonetheless, how can a Euro-Mediterranean zone for the free movement of persons be set up in the framework of the UfM when almost nothing exists in this area in Mediterranean third countries? The intellectuals discussing it, sometimes in an aggressive tone, are only aiming for the opening up of the EU to nationals from their own respective countries. Nothing gives the impression of a union in the making, not even at a level of intent or aspiration.
Aspirations that contradict. It is not up to Europe to criticise or judge the absence of unity between non-EU Mediterranean countries, that task is up to them. But in these conditions, however, the creation of a union is nothing but abstract rhetoric and not only removed from the real situation but also from the aspirations of the third countries themselves. Turkey has already built ties with the EU that go beyond the objectives of the UfM and mistrusts a project it sees as an attempt to replace its goal of accession, notwithstanding that it also sees relations with Eastern countries as far more important than those with the Southern Mediterranean. Balkan countries neighbouring the Mediterranean have nothing in common with the southern Mediterranean and are aiming for accession. Libya indicated from the outset that it intended to remain on the margins of the UfM. Nothing suggests that Morocco and Algeria are seriously committed to ironing out their differences. We could extend this list of misgivings even further. At the same time, the ways ahead for cooperation are largely open and Mr Guaino's UfM is more of a barrier than a fillip. This column will return to this subject tomorrow.
(F.R./transl.rh)