Brussels, 30/06/2009 (Agence Europe) - Belgium, which will be holding EU Presidency during the second half of 2010, considers that the co-presidency of the Union for the Mediterranean (UfM) should correspond to the practice of half-yearly rotating presidency as practised in the EU. In a letter to his Spanish counterpart, extracts of which were revealed by The Financial Times on 29 June, Karel De Gucht, Belgian Foreign Minister, said he was astounded to learn that the arrangement reached by France, which has kept the post of Euro-Mediterranean co-president since holding EU Presidency end 2008, could continue.
Paris had found an arrangement outside the institutional framework with the Czech Republic and, according to concordant sources, has obtained the same agreement with Spain with a view to the EU Presidency that Madrid will be holding during the first half of 2010. In exchange, Spain hopes to succeed France as UfM co-president for a two year mandate, the same duration as that enjoyed by Egypt on behalf of partner countries, and as much as France if confirmed. These non-written arrangements, which were even discreetly negotiated, have not yet been openly criticised. Although they are judged counter to European Community practice, no-one has felt entitled to challenge them in so far as nothing prevents a member state from conceding part of its responsibilities under the EU Council Presidency to another member state. Also, in the knowledge that this solution would lose all meaning if the Lisbon Treaty took effect, one of the interpretations made is that France is acting to consolidate the solution whereby UfM is a separate construction, practically parallel to European institutions and hence not obeying the same rules. The debate has remained in a latent state given the lack of any real prospects for the future since the invasion of Gaza and even before, given a lack of consensus on the objectives and structure of the UfM. In exchange, the Czech Republic had obtained greater attention for the “Eastern Partnership” process. The same interest could prevail in the case of Sweden for which it is not yet known with certainty whether it will allow France to keep the upper hand as, if we are to believe Mr De Gucht, this could create an undesirable precedent. All our questions, at the Swedish permanent representation in Brussels and in Stockholm, remain unanswered. “Wait for 1st July”, is the only answer forthcoming. (F.B./transl.jl)