Sarcotic expectations

On the morrow of Nicolas Sarkozy's election to the French presidency, Alfred Sant and yourself, both of whom studied in Paris, took part in a forum about its implications for Malta. On the question of the 'Mediterranean Union' that was a main plank in Sarkozy's electoral programme, Sant was much more cautious than yourself in welcoming the idea.

You thought that the idea of a Mediterranean Union as a stepping stone to a more general Euro-African alliance gave scope for Malta to push forward its long-held proposals about setting up a network of functional Mediterranean-wide institutions.

Sant suspected that Sarkozy's Mediterranean Union project might be little more than an electoral ploy put forward in view of the large Arab-Muslim presence in France. Some had suggested that it was meant to take care of Turkey's application to join the EU, although Sarkozy had explicitly denied it. Have events since then led you to modify your initial reaction?

Perhaps the most important happening since then was the Euro-African summit held in Lisbon in conjunction with the meeting of the European Union's heads of government. The Mediterranean Union was not on the agenda, but the perspective was the larger picture of the Euro-African alliance.

Unfortunately, the meeting was bedevilled because of the issue of Mugabe's presence (on account of which Gordon Brown had boycotted the summit) and the attacks on the Zimbabwe government, notably by Angela Merkel. The responses of the African leaders were often much more cynical about the Sarkozy Euro-African alliance than that of our own Sant, who sounded a Francophile in comparison.

At the end a declaration was issued that expectedly rinsed away in rose water - if not holy water - all traces of spite and spit, but there was no committal to anything but more talk. The leaders of the European Union gave clear proof that they are still well behind the Chinese in their ability to deal effectively with Africa, no doubt bringing scanty joy to Sarkozy.

Malta does not seem to have been able to find a handle that would have enabled us to display any deftness or lateral thinking in this manoeuvre.

What about the 'Mediterranean Union' project itself?

A first meeting has been called for July in Paris. It seems that before anything else, Sarkozy had to clear the minds of his EU partners of their puzzlement as to how the Mediterranean Union of Sarko's dreams squared with the real European Union. The reaction to the quizzing about this point led to the dream being re-labelled "Union for the Mediterranean" to make it clear that non-Mediterranean European states could take part.

More significantly, its ambitions seem to have been re-dimensioned. Although the actual content of the new 'union' is being left open for the July meeting, the French are now saying that the Union might just consist of a few grand projects, like the coal and steel community in Europe 50 years ago. No blueprint of final destination is necessary to start a process successfully.

Although a doubting Thomas might find that the distinction in nature between 'the Union for the Mediterranean' and 'the European Union' is yet not crystal clear, the talk of projects raises another question: how does the 'Union for the Mediterranean' differ essentially from the Euro-Mediterranean process started at Barcelona a little more than a decade ago?

The provisional answer given is that the projects envisaged will differ mainly by being multilateral rather than merely bilateral in scope and by being decided upon the basis of equality of status between all participants rather than by a team of European officials in Brussels; in other words that they will have more grandeur.

There is little to be wondered at that Sarko personally or his envoys got more or less favourable reaction from most of the littoral countries of which the rounds were done. But it is clear that the turn-around needed by the Mediterranean world requires more than just a re-calibrated Barcelona process.

Governance institutions are badly needed for various purposes. Effective comprehensive policies are required as regards fishing. Regulation of maritime traffic is an urgent necessity to prevent such horrific risks as those of some oil tanker collisions in the overcrowded channel between Malta and Sicily by diverting their passage to the much freer southern waters.

Eventually it will be highly desirable to set up joint management of seabed mineral exploration and exploitation in disputed waters as well as to prevent the further parcellisation of the sea through unilateral declarations by individual states of environmental protection areas or exclusive fishing zones or even of exclusive economic zones, as is happening in case after case.

Indeed, an excellent plan has been drawn up by the Mediterranean Regional Commission for Sustain­able Development set up under the auspices of UNEP, following an originally Maltese initiative, the adoption and implementation of which would fulfill Sarko's dream, or do even better still.

Do you think that Malta will deem it appropriate to follow up the initial impetus it had given to this plan through the mechanism of the July Paris meeting?

The chances would be high if the excellent talk about establishing nationally agreed non-partisan foreign policy, within such parameters as are compatible with our European commitments, were to be really achieved. Even so the thrust can only come from the Government. The likelihood of Malta being able to promote a policy for the Medi­terranean conceived in line with the philosophy of Common Heritage that was proposed at the United Nations by our first independent government, but not embraced by the MLP, is probably greater or less according to who wins the imminent elections.

Fr Peter Serracino Inglott was talking to Miriam Vincenti.