Blockage. The first year of the Union for the Mediterranean (UfM) has mainly been spent on deciding on the location of its headquarters, the creation of a bureaucracy that has progressively ballooned (there are now six deputy secretary generals), the cancellation of planned operational meetings, as well as a few parliamentary debates that provided a platform for demagogy and sometimes intolerance. The important projects - protecting the Mediterranean Sea, cooperation on the ground, trade development, European assistance to less developed neighbouring countries, motorways of the sea etc, were discussed bilaterally or in small and select groups. The responsibility for the blockage is blamed on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which provides a convenient scapegoat for all evils. Without obviously knowing all the repercussions of this tragedy, it would be unwise to believe that any calm in the conflict would in itself provide a miraculous boost to an artificial construction of no interest to non-EU Mediterranean countries whose ambitions with regard to the EU differ radically between themselves, and which often compete with each other or display no solidarity at all.
The reactions to the thunderous speech of Henri Guaino in defence of his project (EUROPE 9902) blamed the failure on Israel and European selfishness to a large extent, but the Arab position is not spared either. According to F. Roberti, who describes himself as an academic, “the Arabs should begin by sweeping up on their own doorsteps. They are never united between themselves and there is now a deep distrust between them. They keep their levels of trade to a very low level and sometimes close their borders”. I do not share this castigating tone; Europe is not about teaching others a lesson. It is obvious, however, that the absence of unity on the other side of the Mediterranean leaves the idea of a union empty (see this column yesterday).
Reciprocity and respect for European culture. Although Europe is not about teaching others a lesson, neither is it about others teaching it a lesson either, especially when it comes to freedoms, respect for cultures, taking in legal immigrants and the freedom of expression. Any project has to be founded on reciprocity and respect for the European way of life. Certain unfortunate experiences have led some of the historically most open countries to become more cautious and in this respect I am thinking of the United Kingdom, Netherlands and Denmark. The Algerian authorities have for a long time criticised the British authorities (and a few other member states) for providing terrorists with too much freedom of expression and action. London has had to strengthen its precautions but no Mediterranean country was involved in the attacks there. In Denmark, the affair involving the cartoons left behind some deep wounds: the freedom of expression was threatened and the authorities had to resort to a kind of verbal acrobatics to get themselves out of the situation. The Netherlands had to radically uphaul the conditions for taking in immigrants and granting nationality. The prime minister, Jan Peter Balkenende, reaffirmed that immigrants seeking residency had to learn Dutch and understand the mentality and principles of the host country. Asked about the decision made by a court in Utrecht to suspend a teacher for refusing to shake men's hands for religious reasons, he replied: “She has the right not to shake hands, we have the right to consider that she loses this job”.
Europeans have to respect the laws and way of life of partner countries; those who come to Europe or who want to reside here must do the same. It is possible that Europe is exaggerating when giving out its lessons on human rights according to criteria and concepts that pertain to its culture and history; elsewhere, one has the right to have different criteria and concepts. Europe must, however, defend and protect its civilisation, its traditions and laws, which may obviously evolve but do include religious freedom. Reciprocity should be the norm for any union agreement or project but we are a long way away from this.
Progress. Whatever the differences in points of view, the conditions for a Euro-Mediterranean union do not exist. On the contrary, the union hinders and makes concrete, possible and urgently needed projects more complicated. The often unpleasant Joint Parliamentary Assembly debates confirm this but at the same time, many cooperation projects are making progress between the EU and its institutions on the one hand (with the EIB at the head of them) and on the other, Mediterranean third countries that are directly involved through trade (long live the Agadir Agreement!), maritime transport, energy infrastructure and even agriculture, an essential domain that is often neglected by prattling professionals or fanatics.
A choice exists between an unrealistic construction, which provokes divergences and rivalry, despite the passion of the speeches made, and possible and useful projects.
(F.R./transl.rh)