Since the demise of the Soviet Union, the process of building Europe has turned towards the East, forgetting the South. In a speech delivered in Toulon on February 7, 2007, which led to the project of a “union for the Mediterranean” Nicolas Sarkozy declared that “the European dream needs a Mediterranean dream”. What exactly is this “dream” evoked by President Sarkozy, and how do you define it?


Despite the Barcelona process, begun in 1995, Europe has neglected the Mediterranean; this was wrong. You cited the speech in Toulon. There Nicolas Sarkozy said that in turning its back on the Mediterranean, “Europe and France thought they had turned their back on the past. They had in fact turned their back on their future”. It’s not only a question of finding a common background, a shared heritage, but also a shared ambition. It’s a question of looking towards the future together. That is exactly the objective fixed for the Mediterranean project set out by President Sarkozy in his speech in Tangiers on October 23, 2007.
 
In a second stage, on December 2, 2007 in Rome, the French president and the prime ministers of Italy and Spain, Romano Prodi and Jose Luis Zapatero, launched a call in favor of a Union for the Mediterranean, and they announced the holding of a conference in Paris in 2008. The paradox is that our civilizations, which have an extraordinary shared heritage, should have been led to such divisions and such a depth of incomprehension. For 1,500 years a deep aspiration has been seen in favor of the unity of the Mediterranean world, but until now it has been expressed only in terms of conquest and domination.

There have been invasions, crusades, colonizations, all of which have failed. Since then, the peoples have been emancipated politically, but the relationships of domination have not entirely disappeared. Forms of neo-colonialism have been perpetuated in a North-South dialogue based on a very unbalanced relationship: we are still in a relationship of the weak to the strong, the rich to the poor, the dominant to the dominated. This unbalance, more or less consciously maintained, has drawn an invisible frontier between the two shores of the Mediterranean. This has notably been the case of the Barcelona process, which has not made it possible to develop a balanced cooperation between the two shores. This failure has been all the starker since Europe’s priority has been in the East. What France, joined by Spain and Italy, has proposed, is to make the Mediterranean a priority and to replace this unbalanced relationship with a relation of partnership.

The objective is to base this partnership on the equality of rights and of dignity among the countries that share the Mediterranean. In the Union for the Mediterranean, each country will have an equal share of responsibility. It will not be a matter, for the countries of the northern shore, to give aid to those of the southern shore; it will be a matter of taking up a common destiny with them. It won’t be a matter of offering charity to them, but of offering to be their partner in development, culture and peace. It won’t be a question of giving lessons or imposing some kind of model, but of building the future in respect of the other.

What does that mean in concrete terms?

It means distancing ourselves from all that has been done until today. In the framework of the Barcelona process, such as it functioned, it was Europe that proposed and disposed. European authorities and bodies decided everything: they chose the projects, financed them and controlled them. In short, the Mediterranean was treated like a periphery of Europe.

We have to change that state of mind. The North and the South have to reflect and work together. The union that we have in mind is one of projects worked out together, financed together, achieved together. And contrary to the spirit of Barcelona, where bilateral agreements were made between the European Union and individual southern countries, the idea is to work on projects of regional interest. Sometimes all the Mediterranean countries will work together on a project; at other times, it will be only some of these countries. But the essential point is to put the accent on regional interests. It’s therefore a new form of regional cooperation aimed at making the Mediterranean basin a laboratory of co-development , where development is decided and achieved together.

Instead of granting aid for development, we will be engaged in co-development. The purpose is to create joint research laboratories, joint universities, poles of joint competitiveness, to “mutualize” the means and bring together the energies, competences and imaginations. This cooperation will not be solely economic, but will give a large place to culture, education, health, the human capital.

The objective is to be pragmatic and to resolve problems together: sustainable development, energy, transport, water, security. Let’s take the matter of immigration as an example. Europe must not impose on the South its policy on immigration. What is necessary is to reflect and conceive a joint policy on immigration. The countries of the North cannot continue to absorb a continuous and incessant influx of massive immigration; but neither can the countries of the South the brain drain and the departure of their young people. There are thus objectives and interests which can be shared. This is the raison d’être of the French proposal: creating the conditions, the institutions, the rules that make it possible to set up, in the long term, a true partnership among all the countries that share the Mediterranean basin.

What about the means of financing this project?

The union will select projects; it will label them and will seek means of financing them. These projects will be presented to the European Union, to institutions like the World Bank or development banks, to the funds of Arab Gulf countries or to the private sector. Experience proves that good projects will always find means of being financed.
But it seems that the French proposal -- now a Franco-Italian-Spanish proposal -- has been received with a certain mistrust on the part of countries in Northern Europe, Germany in particular.

The differences of view between Paris and Berlin on the Union for the Mediterranean are based on many misunderstandings. France has called for a solidarity of revenues on the basis of equality. Chancellor Angela Merkel was not opposed to a new Euro-Mediterranean impulse, but expressed disquiet that the European countries would be divided. The fact that the idea of a Mediterranean union has provoked so much discussion that it is an idea of power that breaks the habits of the past. Finally, this debate has revealed an interest among all the European countries much greater than anyone thought possible concerning the Mediterranean. No one wanted to be left out! So much the better. Following a discussion with Germany, we reached the compromise of Hanover, which is undoubtedly the best synthesis between the French and German points of view, or between the countries on the Mediterranean shores and the others.

All the member states of the European Union will be full members of the Union for the Mediterranean; this is the step that France took in regard to the German position. In return, everyone recognizes that the Euro-Mediterranean Barcelona process has not been productive and that it has been moving straight to a failure. That’s why we must think of re-forming the Euro-Mediterranean relationship, from top to bottom, and of rebuilding it on the basis of this idea of partnership, which is precisely the idea at the heart of the projected Union for the Mediterranean. The Barcelona process will become the Union for the Mediterranean. The idea is to make a sort of “GMed” of the member states. The governance of this Union will be ensured by the heads of state and of government of the member countries; it will be co-presided by a country on the northern shore of the Mediterranean and a country on the southern shore. A permanent secretariat will assist the co-presidency.

To the extent that the Union will include states not on the Mediterranean shore, why not also associate with it the Arab states which do not border the sea but belong to the same social and cultural space, for example the states of the Arab Gulf? After all, the Mediterranean civilizations, marked by the monotheist religions, also have their origins in Mesopotamia and Arabia?

The League of Arab States, which brings together all Arab states, will take part in the Union. In any case, we certainly do not rule out a very close cooperation with the Gulf states. Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar have all expressed interest in the project. In a general way we can say that every country wanting to make a contribution to the projects proposed by the Union for the Mediterranean will be welcome to do so.

The Mediterranean project is a very ambitious one, but has it any chance of coming to fruition?

The best way of ensuring that nothing happens is to do nothing and let others make history. Success will be a matter of political will, it is not enough to do everything, but it is a powerful driving force. We should break with the old habits and overcome taboos. And I think that everybody has begun to realize that the project of a Union for the Mediterranean has a historic scope and that everyone has a duty to do everything possible to make it succeed. If the Union for the Mediterranean succeeds, it will be the best service that could be rendered to Europe and to the world.

The project will be launched at a summit in Paris on July 13 and 14. But success in the long term depends not only on the will of the governments, but also on our capacity to activate the civil societies. This will be the real political challenge: it is the citizens of the Mediterranean who will make the Union for the Mediterranean.

Can we say that the Union for the Mediterranean, which, according to President Sarkozy, comes within the framework of the perspective of a policy of civilization, is an answer to the idea of a “clash of civilizations”? Is it a means of promoting dialogue and comprehension between them?

Here also, the objective is to make progress. The word “dialogue” must not refer only to speeches and discussions held in the context of academic conferences, however laudable these may be. We must rather speak of understanding, respect and solidarity. The moment is no longer one for dialogue, but for action. It’s not enough to meet in seminars to discuss difference between civilizations. What is needed is action to build together. It is necessary to renew active solidarities between our civilizations. It’s not enough to make the Mediterranean only a space for dialogue and a bridge between North and South. We must make it a haven of peace, a crucible of sustainable development and of culture.

The principal characteristic of our civilizations is that they are marked by the three great monotheist religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam…

While remaining firmly attached to our conception of secularism, which is the institutionalization of a respect for all beliefs, we cannot forget that we are in the framework of a Euro-Mediterranean space, where these three religions developed. In his speech in Riyadh, President Sarkozy recalled that in the heart of each civilization, there is something which comes from religion. Without neglecting what we owe to Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece and Rome, our civilizations are the heirs of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The religious question is not a taboo word. Of course, the faith of each person is not a “political” issue, but wars of religions are very much a political issue, as is religious fundamentalism. The capacity of a modernist Islam to prevail is also a political matter. To recover the common origins, i.e. all that brings together the religions of the Book and the civilizations, which arose from them, to renew solidarities between our civilizations and build “new Andalusias” is a political subject. That is why we should follow with great interest the steps undertaken by King Abdallah of Saudi Arabia aimed at promoting inter-cultural and inter-religious dialogue. After his historic visit to the pope, the king of Saudi Arabia suggested on March 24 to hold a large-scale meeting of the representatives of the three monotheist religions. This initiative, coming from the Guardian of the Holy Places of Islam, deserves to be encouraged.

Is it possible to build a solid Union for the Mediterranean without resolving the political crises that overwhelm this region of the world, such as the Algerian-Moroccan disagreement over the Western Sahara, the Cyprus issue, the Lebanese crisis and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict?

Waiting could be a good pretext for doing nothing. Let’s be clear: if we condition all cooperation between the two shores of the Mediterranean on finding solutions to regional crises, we’ll lose yet more time, and we won’t resolve the urgent problems that affect all the peoples and all the countries of the Mediterranean. It’s not a matter of ignoring crises, but of having the audacity and courage to make a bet that we can work together on concrete issues, on urgent questions. For example, the problem of the pollution of the Mediterranean can no longer wait, nor can the problems of energy, water, etc. All these extremely important problems must be taken account of urgently. What we’re hoping is that if we acquire the habit of meeting, of working together on vital problems with a will to find solutions, we will be able to create a desire to live together, a better reciprocal comprehension that will contribute to resolving crises and advancing the cause of peace. Working together is a good way of creating increasingly close solidarities among peoples, of learning to open up to others, of understanding one another better and respecting each other more and, undoubtedly in the last analysis, to diminish the will or desire to fight with one another.

This process of progressive opening up will enable us to change the ambience, the mentalities and the forms of behavior in the Mediterranean. In regard to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli government have shown their interest in the project of the Union for the Mediterranean. Bringing them together to address objectives vital to each of them is perhaps a way of accustoming them to build together as they await the definitive settlement of a conflict which has gone on too long, that is, the creation of a viable and sovereign Palestinian state and the guarantee for the security of the State of Israel.

What about the uncertainties concerning Turkey’s position on the one hand and the participation of Lebanon and Syria on the other?

It should be clear that everybody is invited to participate in the project. From the start, the choice of France, clearly expressed during the speech of President Sarkozy in Tangier, was to conceive the project as including all Mediterranean countries, without excluding any of them.

Some have said that we should only choose certain countries which are already accustomed to working together, but France believes that we should associate all the countries, because the final objective is mutual. Of course, a different choice would have been easier, but the project would not have had the same dimension. That said, we have never underestimated the difficulties.
Turkey fears that the Mediterranean Union will be suggested to it as an alternative to its request to join the European Union. Things are very clear the Declaration of Rome (December 2, 2007) clearly stated that the Union for the Mediterranean should not interfere. “in the process of negotiation between the European Union and Croatia, on the one hand, and between the European Union and Turkey on the other”. Turkey has of course its place in this project.

As for the other countries, I repeat: the door is open to everybody. In regard to Lebanon in particular, we know the eminent role that the Phoenicians played in the building of a Mediterranean identity. They were even the first merchants of the Mediterranean, a fact recalled by the exhibition held at the Institute of the Arab World in Paris on the theme: “The Mediterranean of the Phoenicians”. Under these circumstances, it is clearly indispensable that Lebanon should be involved in this project. But everyone knows the dramatic situation Lebanon is living through today. A democracy which has difficulty functioning, the problems of the relations between Lebanon and Israel, and between Lebanon and Syria. Then there’s the game being played by Iran. It’s another facet of the Middle Eastern problem and the Arab-Israeli conflict.

In this context, the independence of Lebanon today is not total. France has done everything it can to help Lebanon emerge from its crisis. In July 2007 it held a meeting of various Lebanese personalities at La Celle-Saint Cloud with the aim of resuming a constructive dialogue between the various political blocs. France tried to play a positive role by encouraging a resumption of dialogue among the Lebanese parties, which were ignoring each other completely, and by promoting a consensus on the name of a candidate for the Presidency. Of course, French diplomacy has not succeeded in breaking the deadlock in the situation and its efforts have not been crowned with success, but that doesn’t mean it should have done nothing! France is following the Lebanese crisis with concern and naturally remains very watchful and very much ready for action. The constant principle of French policy is the defense of the sovereignty and independence of Lebanon.