Plenary sessions

Saturday 29 March 2008

Plenary session I (11:30am – 1pm)

“Who needs a Union for the Mediterranean?”

At first glance, the countries on both sides do. But judging by their reactions, things are more complicated than that. Some people fear a purely French initiative, while others wonder if the very word “union” is too ambitious, considering the gaps between the South and the North and the almost total lack of economic relations between the southern countries. Still others would feel left out of a project reserved for the Mediterranean countries alone.
Should we pursue the Barcelona process or imagine a Mediterranean Union that would only include the Mediterranean countries? And in what way? Should the European method of “closer cooperation” be applied to the Mediterranean? And if it is, what status might be imagined for the countries that do not belong to the “inner circle”?

Plenary session II (2:30 - 4pm)

“The Mediterranean: a strategic stake”

The Mediterranean has been the crossroads of dangers and envy since High Antiquity. The end of the Cold War seemed to ensure the United States’ unfettered hegemony for a brief period, but America’s weakness stemming from the Iraq war, the resurgence of Russian power smacking of the Cold War, the emergence of a “Shiite arch” under Iranian domination, international and regional terrorism, and the persistence of tensions in the eastern Mediterranean, Caucasus and Balkans make the Mediterranean a region of high strategic intensity.
Could the Union for the Mediterranean lay the groundwork for a regional security system?

Plenary session III (4:30 – 6pm)

“Rule of law in the Mediterranean”

This session tackles the thorny issue of democracy in the Mediterranean. The choice of words is important: we prefer “rule of law” to “democracy” because it is easier to define than the latter term, which smacks of President Bush’s touted “New Middle East” and, consequently, might repel many people.
But this is more than a matter of words. An essential question is to know whether everybody must reach the “democratic level” set down by the Copenhagen criteria before a common policy can be pursued or whether, on the contrary, pursuing a common policy is a pre-requisite for ensuring that all countries adopt the rule of law in the long term. Another question is to define a minimum acceptable by all.

Sunday 30 March 2008

Plenary session I (11:30am – 1pm)

“What would a Mediterranean economic area consist of ? ”
in partnership with the European Investment Bank (EIB)

Inspite of development levels between the northern and southern shores of the Mediterranean being still too far apart, the establishment of a Mediterranean economic area is not unrealistic: the achievements of the Barcelona Process, the ongoing dialogue between institutions and civil societies and, above all, the cultural and geographical proximity provide a solid basis for moving forward.
Provided that the will is there and if cooperation between the economic players is strengthned, greater synergies can be achieved between Europe and its Mediterranean partners.

Plenary session II (2:30 - 4pm)

« L’Europe et l’Union pour la Méditerranée »

Politically, this is probably the most loaded issue. We know that politicians in Europe, the Maghreb and the Machrek have not warmly embraced the idea. Some are taking a softer line, while others, such as Mrs Merkel, are still fiercely opposed.
The debate may take two directions: what organic ties can be imagined between an entity that already exists and a group of sovereign States whose attempts to unite have all ended in failure? And how can the fears of those who see the Mediterranean Union either as a pointless duplication of Euroméd or, worse, an initiative that might divide Europe, be eased?