Topic 2008

A Union for the Mediterranean,
Why and How?

Paris - UNESCO, March 28, 29 and 30, 2008

Mare nostrum, the cradle of civilisation, a region of peace and cooperation: statements about the Mediterranean tend to be lyrical, but the reality is gloomier than the professions of faith. The Mediterranean is sharply divided between two shores, one that is stable, prosperous and democratic and another which is quite the opposite. The massive and anarchic migratory movements that criss-cross the region are made inevitable by the yawning economic gap and the severe demographic imbalance. And the aggressive religious fundamentalism that rages there is nourished by despotism, failing educational systems and poverty.

It is commonplace that these disparities are causes of grief. Solidarity between the two shores of the Mediterranean is more than a moral duty, it is the key to a future acceptable to all. The question of employment illustrates the case in hand: Europe desperately needs manpower, while the Southern nations are unable to provide work for their populous and idle youth, whose sense of frustration makes them prey to fanatical battle cries. But how can the necessary migratory flows be controlled without a better education and vocational training in the countries of emigration, which in turn can only be provided by international cooperation? So, if geography and history have created a showcase of a common civilisation, the imperatives of globalisation impose to create a framework for shared development.

It is this correct observation that led to the set-up of the Barcelona Process, which, as we know, was not a great success. In hindsight, we know why. Initially driven by the euphoria of the Oslo Accords, which appeared to herald the advent of peace in the Middle East, the Barcelona process suffered from their failure. Moreover, its goals were too ambitious, meant to address all the aspects of a most complex relationship. Also, the process lost its way in the gaping chasm of inequality between the North and South, which were locked in an imbalanced relationship that prevented any true partnership. Finally, the
geographical scope was perhaps too broad, attempting to involve from the start all the members of the European Union, countries bordering the Mediterranean as well as countries that naturally look to Eastern Europe, which was already impatiently waiting at the gates of the Union.

The method must be changed by learning the lessons of the relative failure of the Barcelona Process while capitalising on its achievements. It will doubtless be necessary to demarcate more clearly the geographical areas of action, to create real partnerships that take the interests and the traditions of the parties into consideration, to involve civil society more closely and to define more thoroughly the short-term objectives with an obligation to achieve results. Why not take inspiration from the model of the “community method” that was so successful in Europe as it took its first steps in its own unification process? If designed with intelligence and deployed with all the necessary audacity and caution, the Mediterranean Union, the idea of which was initiated by the President of the Republic in his speech of May 6th, 2007, may become the Grand Design that the Mediterranean needs.

The Forum de Paris is the right place to give thought to this project, to the preconditions for its success, to its contours and content. The Forum has been focussing on North-South relationships for a decade and has acquired recognised expertise in the organisation of events involving players in the Mediterranean dialogue: political decision-makers, industrialists, trade union representatives, intellectuals, journalists, etc. The Forum aspires to put this know-how, founded on its long experience and a remarkable network of friends, at the disposal of an idea that has been its own raison d’être since its very inception.