04 Sep 2008: ISS Today: Challenges and Opportunities for a Mediterranean Union

4 September 2008: Challenges and Opportunities for a Mediterranean Union

 

The Union for the Mediterranean project proposed by French President Nicolas Sarkozy has become a reality. On 13 July 2008, altogether 43 leaders of countries around the Mediterranean gathered in Paris and launched the new Union, hoping to inject new momentum in Middle East peace efforts and bolster cooperation in the troubled region. 

 

There are several motivations for this Union. Firstly Europe seeks to play an active role in the Middle East - both in economic terms and in terms of security.  Economically, Europe is looking towards the Middle East for oil and gas resources. The Middle East is equally a beneficial market for European industrial goods and weapons.  In addition, the southern European states, in particular France, Spain, Italy and Portugal, are concerned about the impact of instability in North Africa that could lead to massive migration across the Mediterranean.

 

It has been over a decade since the November 1995 launch of the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership, known as the Barcelona Process. Up tot now this has constituted the policy of the European Union (EU) towards Mediterranean countries.  Before the introduction of the Barcelona Process many attempts by the EU to contribute positively to the development of such ties had failed.  There was for example the Conference for Security and Cooperation in the Mediterranean, the Mediterranean Forum, the Middle East and North Africa Summit, the Arms Control and Regional Security Working Group, the Western European Union’s Mediterranean Initiative, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s Mediterranean Dialogue/Contact Group, Middle East and North Africa Summits and The Forum for Dialogue and Cooperation in the Mediterranean.

 

In addition, the Euro-Arab Dialogue (EAD) was established in the aftermath of the 1973 oil embargo and the Arab-Israeli War, in the hope of improving relations with the Arab world through the promotion of economic and cultural ties.  However from the start it was overshadowed by such issues as the Arab-Israeli conflict.  This resulted in the postponement of the first EAD meeting until June 1975, and the framework’s complete suspension following the 1979 Egyptian-Israeli Camp David Peace Agreement.

 

The Barcelona Process as a framework is not likely to be resuscitated since its principle of linking military security to an overall strategy of cooperation and partnership has been at the center of discussion and many Arab countries express their suspicions around this principle.

 

Meanwhile European and EU involvement in the Middle East have been increasing, especially in the negotiations both between Israel and the Palestinian Authority and between Israel and Syria.  The EU has provided substantial funds to the Palestinians, and appointed a special coordinator to assist the Palestinian Authority in the area of security.  With respect to Syria and Lebanon, the French government has been particularly active, sending officials to the region and inviting major role-players to Paris. 

 

The complex situation in the Middle East, particularly the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, poses a major challenge to the prospects of the union succeeding.  The continuity of the conflict, due to the occupation of Arab lands in Syria, Lebanon and Palestine casts a heavy shadow over the entire initiative.Meanwhile tensions between Israel and its archenemy Iran have risen over Tehran’s nuclear program.  Iranian President MahmoudAhmadinejad has often spoken of wiping Israel off the map.  Meanwhile Israel and the West in general believe Tehran’s nuclear program is aimed at producing nuclear weapons, despite Iran’s insistence that it is for producing nuclear energy. 

 

Indeed, the Union for the Mediterranean faces several important obstacles.  This includes the difficulty of conducting talks between states from a vast and diverse area and American fears that the EU-Mediterranean cooperation would derail the Middle East peace process and curtail U.S. freedom of action in the Mediterranean. Another obstacle is the complex nature of the planned decision-making process, which was considered to be overtly burdensome.  The final obstacle is that the Libyan leader Muammar Khaddafi did not attend the summit.  Among his many concerns over the initiativeis that he insisted that the Mediterranean union would lead to the domination of the North over the South.

 

According to a draft declaration reported in the media, the Mediterranean summit participants announced “the objective of achieving peace, stability and security” in the region.  The draft declaration also mentioned that the Union for the Mediterranean is to be operational by the end of 2008 and it will be jointly run by all its members.  In a final declaration, Israel, Syria, the Palestinians, along with countries across Europe, the Middle East and North Africa agreed to pursue a mutually and effectively verifiable Middle East Zone free of weapons of mass destruction.There is a major concern that the stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and conventional weapons have proliferated faster in the Mediterranean and that such weapons are becoming increasingly sophisticated and deadly.  It is this concern that urges the states in the region to eliminate their superfluous weapons and reduce their armed forces in proportion to their real security needs. 

 

Historically, Euro-med, (the Barcelona process) has been a cruel deception for Israel.  The problem is that, in a forum that comprises all Arab countries including Syria and Lebanon that are very hostile to Israel, there could not be a single meeting of the Barcelona process in which Israel was not accused, attacked and criticized, whether for its treatment of the Palestinians in the territories, its military reprisals in Gaza or its alleged nuclear project.  Incidentally, Israel feels much more comfortable within the framework of NATO’s European dialogue, where discussions are more technical and professional and Israel confronts only few other Mediterranean countries.

 

In conclusion, while trying to unify the region, the Union for the Mediterranean summit laid bare the deep divisions within it and highlighted how hard it will be to parlay the meeting’s goodwill and words into real progress.  Over the years, a number of ideas and initiatives have been put forward to establish cooperation in the Mediterranean with no success.  The negotiations towards a resolution of historical hostility in and around the region can continue.  The confidence building that is necessary to develop workable and realistic compromises will take many years, and efforts to force the pace are likely to be counterproductive.  Despite the show of goodwill at the Paris summit, the new Union could still be derailed by the same Middle East conflicts that have spoiled past efforts at EU-Mediterranean co-operation.  Nevertheless, while the French initiated summit for the Union forthe Mediterranean did not produce a major breakthrough, conference participants approved six projects and signed an accord. There were also talks around developing peace and fighting terrorism.  Finally all 43 nations signed on to support the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. 

 

DebayTadesse, Senior Researcher, Direct Conflict Prevention Programme, Institute for Security Studies, Addis Ababa Office