Maybe it is time to be a bit more generous to French President Nicolas Sarkozy and look at the outcome of what he does rather than the way that he does it.
The original launch of the Mediterranean Union almost sank the whole enterprise. Appearing to speak without giving the issue much thought, Sarkozy initially proposed a club of European and mostly Arab states along the Mediterranean’s shore. It would have been in essence a French-run enterprise that the rest of Europe would have paid for. This did not go down well, particularly with the Germans.
There was also a strong suspicion that the French were trying to find a way to buy off Turkey with a relationship falling well short of EU membership.
So the auguries for an attempt to revitalize Europe’s relationship with its Mediterranean partners were not good. But by the time of the grand Paris Summit last month to send the new club on its way, the initial suspicions had largely been overcome. Sarkozy bowed to his European critics and enjoyed a diplomatic triumph.
We shall soon see whether there is substance to the initiative, or whether it is just a coat of fresh paint on an old and tired idea.
The original Barcelona Process, launched in 1995, was an excellent scheme. Intended to provide an economic and political backdrop to peace-making through confidence-building in the Middle East, it was an admirable recognition of Europe’s historical, commercial, cultural and political ties with its neighbors to the south of the sea which has brought us all together over the years.
ASPIRATIONS
There were aspirations for a free-trade area by 2010. There were pledges of political integration based on shared values. There were people-to-people links. There was a forum where Israelis and their long-term Arab foes could sit together and discuss other matters than the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. There was a development budget. And there were meetings. So many meetings.
The effort was far from worthless. Development projects were funded through grants or cheap loans, and these have probably played at least some part in increasing the attractiveness of the Maghreb and the Mashraq to foreign investors. There was some lowering of agricultural and other tariffs by the EU. Dialogue on political reform, and euros to support it, helped further the process in some countries, notably Morocco and Jordan. There was some cooperation on common problems like drugs and illegal immigration.
But, as a significant component of Europe’s policy toward its most crucial neighbors, the successes of the Barcelona Process were modest: A great idea on the launch pad had difficulty getting off the ground.
So Sarkozy deserves at least two-and-a-half cheers for trying to revitalize it. But if the Mediterranean Union is to achieve more than was managed in its first manifestation, a number of things will need to happen.
First, Europe is better at talking about free-trade areas than delivering free trade. For example, there are still too many barriers to agricultural trade between the north and the south. And guess which country leads the opposition to any significant opening up of European agriculture? Step forward, France, and take a bow.
Second, however slow we have been in opening up a real Mediterranean market, the barriers to freer trade between Arab League countries are just as great.
Third, it was excellent that in Paris Sarkozy began the process of bringing Syria in out of the diplomatic cold. We must also hope that his attempts to act as a peace-broker between West Bank Palestinians and Israel are blessed with success.
NON-EXISTENT POLICY
But the truth is that Europe, for all the gallant efforts of EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, has been absent from serious politics in the Middle East. It has not dared to cross the US. A largely non-existent European policy toward the region has been dictated by the absentee monopolists of policy in Washington.
Europe should get more seriously involved, even at the risk of occasionally irritating the US, which may be less likely to happen once the administration of US President George W. Bush is history.
For a start, we should recognize that there will be no political settlement in Palestine without including Hamas. What would incredibly have been former British prime minister Tony Blair’s first visit to Gaza in his first year of peace-making had to be canceled recently because of security concerns. Enough said.
Finally, Europe has to decide how serious it is about all the admirable stuff in the Barcelona Process on pluralism, civil society, the rule of law and democracy.
Is Europe serious that a shared concept of human rights should be one of the foundations of a Mediterranean partnership? If so, what is Europe proposing to do about it? If this is just blah-blah, better not say it. Europe will discredit itself and important principles if it says things that it does not mean.
Chris Patten is a former governor of Hong Kong and European commissioner for external affairs. He is now chancellor of Oxford University and co-chair of the International Crisis Group.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
In the first year of his second term, US President Donald Trump continued to shake the foundations of the liberal international order to realize his “America first” policy. However, amid an atmosphere of uncertainty and unpredictability, the Trump administration brought some clarity to its policy toward Taiwan. As expected, bilateral trade emerged as a major priority for the new Trump administration. To secure a favorable trade deal with Taiwan, it adopted a two-pronged strategy: First, Trump accused Taiwan of “stealing” chip business from the US, indicating that if Taipei did not address Washington’s concerns in this strategic sector, it could revisit its Taiwan
The stocks of rare earth companies soared on Monday following news that the Trump administration had taken a 10 percent stake in Oklahoma mining and magnet company USA Rare Earth Inc. Such is the visible benefit enjoyed by the growing number of firms that count Uncle Sam as a shareholder. Yet recent events surrounding perhaps what is the most well-known state-picked champion, Intel Corp, exposed a major unseen cost of the federal government’s unprecedented intervention in private business: the distortion of capital markets that have underpinned US growth and innovation since its founding. Prior to Intel’s Jan. 22 call with analysts
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) challenges and ignores the international rules-based order by violating Taiwanese airspace using a high-flying drone: This incident is a multi-layered challenge, including a lawfare challenge against the First Island Chain, the US, and the world. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) defines lawfare as “controlling the enemy through the law or using the law to constrain the enemy.” Chen Yu-cheng (陳育正), an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of China Military Affairs Studies, at Taiwan’s Fu Hsing Kang College (National Defense University), argues the PLA uses lawfare to create a precedent and a new de facto legal
International debate on Taiwan is obsessed with “invasion countdowns,” framing the cross-strait crisis as a matter of military timetables and political opportunity. However, the seismic political tremors surrounding Central Military Commission (CMC) vice chairman Zhang Youxia (張又俠) suggested that Washington and Taipei are watching the wrong clock. Beijing is constrained not by a lack of capability, but by an acute fear of regime-threatening military failure. The reported sidelining of Zhang — a combat veteran in a largely unbloodied force and long-time loyalist of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — followed a year of purges within the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA)
RSS