Mediterranean what?

By Salama A Salama

---

The Union for the Mediterranean is all over the news. A variation on the Barcelona Process that began in 1995 and has apparently run out of steam, this union is supposed to provide a new framework for partnership between the EU and countries bordering the Mediterranean, plus Jordan and Israel. Some even hope that it would promote peace in the Middle East while safeguarding European interests in the Mediterranean and Africa.

Right now the EU is busy restructuring itself. All member states, except Ireland, have just signed the Lisbon Treaty, which gives the EU a new charter, a president, a council, an external relations commissioner and a parliament. It was against this background that Sarkozy called for the Barcelona Process to be reconsidered.

Mediterranean, as envisioned in Barcelona, didn't amount to much after all. Much of the intended cooperation was held back because of opposition to normalisation with Israel. Arab countries felt as if they weren't being consulted enough about what comes next. Consequently, the Barcelona Process failed to resolve problems of immigration, foreign workers, democracy and human rights. It neither reduced European fears of terror nor bridged the gap between North and South.

The Union for the Mediterranean aspires to revive the Barcelona Process, albeit in a more manageable form. For one thing, it will not try to address such protracted political problems as the Arab-Israeli conflict, Cyprus, and the Western Sahara. Instead, it will focus on joint projects involving clear economic and technological gains. Member states would have the option to join any project they like, whether it is combating pollution in the Mediterranean, developing solar and alternative energy, regulating sea-lanes or building highways along the Mediterranean coast.

It may seem a modest endeavour, but so were the beginnings of the EU -- the giant that grew out of the simple arrangement known as the European Coal and Steel Community. It took months of negotiations for the EU to finalise the Mediterranean Union formula, mainly because Germany wanted all EU members, not just the Mediterranean littoral countries, to have a chance to join.

Arab countries qualifying for the union include Egypt, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Mauritania, Lebanon, Jordan and Syria. Of those, Algeria voiced reservations. Libya thought the union's goals were vague and wondered why it should be called a union to start with. Turkey too had its doubts, fearing that the whole thing was a gimmick to keep it out of the EU. And Israel hasn't commented yet.

Would such an arrangement fare better than the Barcelona Process? Will not the Arab-Israeli conflict slow things down once more? Can Arabs take a greater part in the union's decision-making? And will nations benefit from the union, or will businessmen reap all the gains?

Sarkozy has been in touch with President Mubarak and other North African leaders. Other EU officials held talks with seven Arab foreign ministers. For now, everyone agrees that the union would be run by a joint presidency starting with a two-year term for Sarkozy and Mubarak. A steering committee is to be based in Brussels and a standing secretariat is to reside in an Arab country, perhaps Tunisia.

If the past is an indicator, one has to maintain a position of healthy scepticism about the whole thing. For one thing, Sweden and Poland, among others, said they would rather focus on the north, not the Mediterranean. So until the next summit is held in Paris on 13 July, some questions remain unanswered.