Isn't it fantastic? Paris on the eve of July 14, a jubilant President Sarkozy surrounded by EU leaders and the leaders of the countries of the Mediterranean rim, all bar one Col. Muammar Qaddafi, stand shoulder to shoulder with bright new hope for a prosperous and peaceful future. Here we have a photo of the French president sandwiched between the Israeli prime minister and the Palestinian president. Here we have another of him shaking hands with Bashar Al-Assad, then another photo where the Syrian and Lebanese leaders stand astride Sarkozy. Am I to start believing in superman, or at least in Super-Sarko?
This is after all Super-Sarko's very personal vision of a Mediterranean Union. His dream - and one which borrowed much from his predecessor Jacques Chirac - was of a union of the states along the Mediterranean rim, a bridge between North and South, between France's former colonized territories and their more prosperous and developed neighbors across the water. This was also a project that would bring the mighty Turkey into a European Union other than THE European Union, almost like a consolation prize, as France is obstinately opposed to Turkey's proposed EU membership.
It did not quite go according to plan. Sarkozy's first obstacle came from France's most powerful, and non-Mediterranean, neighbor: Germany. Was Sarkozy not simply carving up Europe into two spheres of influence, with one axis running East from Berlin and the other South from Paris, cunningly carving himself a leading role in the process? Not only that, but had he not essentially devised a scheme whereby the EU paid the bills for an initiative that excluded from the decision-making those who footed the largest chunk of the bill? Mrs. Merkel was not happy. The map was promptly redrawn so that mainland Europe would not feel excluded and a proposal emerged that merged Sarkozy's idea of a Union of Mediterranean states with the idea of a EU-Mediterranean association launched in Barcelona in 1995. .
The result is a grouping of some 40 states with only a fuzzy geographical raison d'être. In essence, a fabulous talking shop. Or to put it another way, an impressive and showy get-together that excludes the US.
And glittering it was, under the dazzling beauty of the Grand Palais, the leaders of the 27 members of the EU, were gathered with the leaders of 16 countries from the Middle East and North Africa, for a summit co-hosted by Sarkozy and President Hosni Mobarak of Egypt - though much of the media coverage here in Europe has glossed over Mubarak's role. In fact you could be forgiven for thinking this was Sarkozy's show.
Sarkozy has certainly scored a few political goals. First, there is the rehabilitation of Syria. Bashar is perhaps the greatest winner in this great photo opportunity. His invitation to Paris is a tacit acknowledgement that nothing can be done without Syria. The announcement that Syria and Lebanon are to open embassies in each other's capital has also been greeted with much press enthusiasm. It is certainly a milestone and can only be perceived as a positive development. Much was also made of the fact that the Syrian president sat in the same room as the Israeli prime minister for the first time - though he left the room when it was Olmert's turn to speak.
Olmert certainly thought the summit a great success, claiming that Israel and Palestine are the closest they have ever been to a peace deal. Really? I suppose it is relative. If two poles are thousands of miles apart, bringing them hundreds of miles apart can be described as bringing them closer than they have ever been, but they are still miles apart. The announcement that Israel has agreed to release a large number of Palestinian prisoners is certainly good news but the reality is that without the US and without the countries of the GCC, this meeting cannot bring about a dramatic movement in the Middle East peace process, and anyone that claims otherwise is either an idealist dreamer or a politician with trouble at home.
What this new Mediterranean Union can do is create opportunities for the countries of the South of the Mediterranean to catch up economically and politically with the countries of the North.
Like all opportunities, it is a two-way process. It cannot be about the rich North paying for the poorer South to catch up. It should certainly not be what Col. Qaddafi has termed modern colonialism. A continuation of the status quo is also not a desired option.
There is much scope for cooperation on specific projects, such as the proposed initiatives to develop solar power across North Africa, or to combat pollution and climate change. There is also a desperate need to build infrastructure in the South that will facilitate trade both intra and inter-regionally. There are also the politically sensitive issues of immigration and the more politically expedient opportunities offered by cultural and educational exchanges. In short, there is much work to be done.
But will this new union be a departure from the status quo? It's hard to tell at present what lies beneath all the razzmatazz. When it all dies down and all the leaders have gone home, will they even have agreed on a seat for this new organization? Will they have clear and concrete objectives? Or will it be yet another great photo opportunity and moment of European delusion? Could it really bring about love and peace between hostile neighbors as Sarkozy claimed with such passion? As much as I am an out and out European, I have to admit to feeling pessimistic. When it comes to the world stage, the European bloc always says the right thing but gets trumped by our friends across the Atlantic.
