Having tracked developments linked to this commendable initiative ever since it was launched, I consider it opportune to express some strictly personal views on the proposal, particularly at this given point in time.
I supported the idea from its inception because at present there are no regional institutions – at a government, not parliamentary level – that deal solely with the Mediterranean.
I have also argued both in diplomatic circles as well as in other fora that the geographic perimeter of the Mediterranean Union should include all states on the Mediterranean littoral.
This aim can only be achieved if invitation for membership of the Union is extended to all the states of the region.
What I disagreed with were the following:
(a) That there should be European founding members and others should be invited to join later. That in my opinion could sow a strong element of distrust.
(b) That one should use certain benchmarks to determine whether a truly Mediterranean country should be allowed to join or not. That in my opinion would be as risky as the by now abandoned concept of trying to impose democracy in the Gulf and the Middle East from above.
(c) That countries like Israel should be excluded.
On the other hand, if certain countries do not intend to join then it is up to them to decide. Which explains why personally I think that membership should be on a voluntary basis.
I agree with the notion that the PAM (Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean) should serve as the parliamentary arm of the Med Union. But when bearing in mind that for reasons unknown – at least to me – both Libya and Israel chose not to attend the Malta third meeting of this Assembly, I do not think that PAM should be the be all and end all of a Mediterranean Union, although one should not allow possibilities of co-operation between the two institutions to go amiss when there is so much complimentarity.
The international media and my colleague John Dalli have recently commented about the joint declaration between Prodi-Sarkozy-Zapatero, where they recently announced a July 13 summit during a Rome joint news conference.
According to the AFP, the three leaders discussed the plan to establish an EU type of Union of the zone. The bloc’s mission was defined as that of reuniting Europe and Africa around the countries along the Mediterranean rim and to set up a partnership on an equal footing between the countries north and south of the sea.
The general idea seems to be to also take on board Med civil societies, businesses, local communities, associations and NGOs.
It is interesting to note that the Med Union Paris summit will precede by a day an EU Summit on 14 July in Brussels.
What perturbed me were some reports that thought is being given to the possibility of the EU joining the Union as a body over and above its individual member states. That in my opinion could complicate matters unduly.
On the other hand, one cannot treat too lightly the German Chancellor’s expressed scepticism about this proposal, whereby she was reported by Deutsche Welle as having said that Sarko’s suggestion could pose a threat to the European Union.
Angela Merkel actually said that if such a separate group with access to EU funds were created, it could lead to a corrosion of the EU in its core area. Also adding that “this could release explosive powers in the EU that I would rather not witness.”
When Sarkozy unveiled his plan for a Med Union even before he was elected President in May, he said that his aim with such a union was to facilitate regional co-operation in the areas of energy, security, counter-terrorism and immigration while envisioning the creating a Mediterranean Investment Bank to help grow the economies of the eastern and southern edges of the Med region.
He even repeated this objective in his actual election victory speech.
One still has to determine how this idea will be welcomed by the Muslim world itself since unofficial reports hint that there could be potential division in spite of its noble objectives.
Many argue that the lack of details provided so far has been a source of criticism. There is also concern about the relationship between the proposed MU and the existing Euromed Partnership (which to be fair includes a number of non-Mediterranean European countries) whose interest in the Med region might not be as strong as one could hope for.
People I have spoken to have also shown concern about the further worries that could be generated should there be duplication of policies from the EU’s police and judicial area. Personally I have always imagined the MU as a looser grouping than the EU.
Sarkozy might have unintentionally created some doubts when he once said that the Mediterranean people could, through the MU, do the same thing, with the same goal and the same method as the EU, however without being based on the EU model.
It is intriguing to note that whilst the MU project continues to push ahead, hiccups and all, Spain and France are unofficially reported to have had so far cold feet about Malta’s proposal for an EU-Arab League dialogue.
The biggest obstacle that the Mediterranean Union project could pose is that it could create more questions than answers and arguably merely confuse the picture even more.
On the other hand Malta must rise to the occasion and refrain from being left behind, instead of risking limiting itself to playing a merely supportive or secondary role while the big European players take the lead.
The time is also ripe to ascertain what demarcation lines will exist between the Med Union and the Barcelona process if the former actually gets off the ground.
So far there have not been any formal Malta government statements on this issue.
But then in spite of our repeated public calls neither have there been any Malta government statements or position papers on Kosovo or the Middle East – be it pre-Annapolis or even post-Annapolis.