Nicolas Sarkozy must have hoped to find some solace during his recent trip to Beirut. However, the few hours spent in the land of the Cedar can hardly mask the accumulating bad news around the Mediterranean that darkens the prospects for a successful launch of his flagship project, the Union for the Mediterranean, on July 13th. Prudently left out of the initial scheme to avoid the stalemate encountered by the 1995 Barcelona Process, the political aspect of an agreement between Arab countries and Israel reappears in an undoubtedly tense regional context. It could not only undermine the success of the Élysée’s initiative but also tarnish the upcoming French presidency of the European Union.
Many hesitations stem from Arab countries. Eleven of them formally requested, during the Mediterranean countries’ Forum on June 5th and 6th in Algiers and in the presence of the French Foreign Minister, “clarifications” on Israel’s participation in this Union. Bernard Kouchner’s Algerian counterpart, Mourad Medelci, even withheld his country’s response regarding the adhesion project, making President Bouteflika’s visit to Paris in July uncertain. In Egypt, a country likely to co-chair this program as a representative of the southern shores, recurring violence linked to global food disturbances – the halt in deliveries of subsidized flour and the surrounding corruption – shakes various regions of Cairo.
In about two weeks, the President of the Republic will make an official visit to Israel without knowing if the Israeli state will have resolved the uncertainties surrounding the political future of its Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, entangled in serious bribery scandals. This political crisis blocks discussions with the Palestinians to the point where President Mahmoud Abbas seeks renewed dialogue with Hamas officials in Saudi Arabia. Meanwhile, Gaza is rife with alarming rumors about a large-scale offensive planned by the IDF to put an end to rocket launches from the area controlled by the Islamist faction. Regardless of whether this is linked to domestic politics, recent statements by Deputy Prime Minister Shaoul Mofaz about the “ineffective international sanctions” against Iran and the prospect of an “attack” if the country “continues its nuclear weapons program” do not bode well for a truce in the region. Even if disavowed by the Israeli political class, these statements occur, let us note, after discussions between Ehud Olmert and the White House.
Looking towards Turkey, the Élysée is unlikely to find comfort: the legitimate amendment passed in the institutional reform desired by the Head of State mandates a referendum for the entry into the EU of any country with a population exceeding 5% of the Union’s. This ad hoc amendment has infuriated Ankara’s ruling AKP leaders. These Turkish leaders are themselves caught in a legal turmoil following the Turkish Constitutional Court’s annulment of an amendment lifting the ban on headscarves in universities, announcing in the long run the probable ban on the ruling religious party.
In another category—the one involving more delicate associations—one might have hoped for a comforting gesture from Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi. Yet despite his warm reception in France a few months ago, he obstinately refuses to sit at a table where an Israeli leader is present. There remains Syrian President Bashar al-Assad who, failing to visit Lebanon where his presence could once again plunge the country into civil war, might be inclined to travel to France. It remains to be seen whether Nicolas Sarkozy’s firm statements in Lebanon on the “non-negotiable nature” of the judgment of Rafic Hariri’s assassins will be sufficiently softened by the two Élysée envoys heading to Damascus.
After the restrictions imposed on the Élysée project by European countries, notably Germany or Spain, those on the southern shore are playing spoilsport. To the extent that they give this “great dream of civilization… capable of moving the world” mentioned by Nicolas Sarkozy in Morocco in October 2007, the appearance of a nightmare.
