NEW GEOPOLITICS IN THE LAND OF ANCIENT CIVILIZATIONS

A new player has entered the global political arena - the Mediterranean union. The leaders of 43 countries (The EU member states, Balkan countries, North African countries and Near Eastern countries) announced its creation in Paris. Despite any possible doubts about the prospects for this international union, the very fact of its emergence in an area which is the cradle of human civilization merits close attention.

From Barcelona to Paris

The full name of the project is the Barcelona process, or Union of the Mediterranean. Spain insisted on this name. After all, it was in Barcelona in 1995 that the process to promote partnership between European countries and the nations of the Southern Mediterranean was launched. However, back then the activities of the Barcelona process were stalled by aggravating regional conflicts: first and foremost, that between Arab and Israeli.

The founders of the new union decided immediately to launch specific projects, in particular, to combat pollution in the Mediterranean Sea and to tackle the food crisis and the problem of lack of drinking water. But French President Nicolas Sarkozy, the ideologue of the organization, summarised the main goal of the new organization in the following manner: "The Union was founded in the name of peace in the region."

In the meantime, the political aspects of the activities of the new organization are not completely clear. France, which initiated the process of creating the union and which is trying to establish itself as the principal actor in the region, pinned great hopes on the Mediterranean union. However, Paris was forced by its European partners to curb its ambitions.

The French president initially insisted on a union of only those countries which had access to the Mediterranean. But Germany, which is not a Mediterranean nation and would therefore have to cede an important geopolitical lever to the French, opposed the idea. Had German Chancellor Angela Merkel agreed to Nicolas Sarkozy's initial plan, Berlin would have had to recognize Paris's role as mediator in the dialogue between the Mediterranean nations and those countries supplying North African natural gas. That is why Germany agreed to support the union only on the proviso that all EU countries would join. Sarkozy agreed to this condition, aware of the fact that Paris did not have freedom to act anyway. France, which is an EU country, is part of all programmes emerging from Brussels and it would be difficult for it to play a major geopolitical game independently of the EU.

For its part, the EU confirmed its interest in the regulation of its relations with the countries of the Southern Mediterranean, despite the fact that most of the countries in that region are run by political and economic regimes which do not share European liberal values. In this respect, the Mediterranean Union is completely free of ideology and the project discusses everything except issues of democratization and political reforms. The only thing which the EU does not hide in its dialogue with the South is its desire to secure its borders and check immigration.

However, from the point of view of the strongman of world politics, the United States, the establishment of the Mediterranean union looks like a challenge of sorts from the EU. It has become clear that even Nicolas Sarkozy, who is perhaps the first president in the history of the Fifth Republic to adopt a friendly attitude towards the United States, finds Washington's excessive activity in the Near East unacceptable. France and the rest of Europe gave the United States to understand that the Mediterranean is a traditional area of interest for the Old World and, in this respect, the Barcelona process also looks like an attempt to weaken global US influence.

Far-sighted choice

In the meantime, there is yet another country, in the Euro-Atlantic area, which is very cautious about the Mediterranean union, namely, Turkey, which, although it did join the new organization, is worried that the Mediterranean project is a trap which Nicolas Sarkozy has sprung to lock the gate to the EU for Ankara.

As is known, France is strongly opposed to Turkey's accession to the EU and urges Ankara to settle for other forms of integration with European nations. So Turkey mulled over accession to the Mediterranean union, trying to guess whether or not the French would begin procrastinating about Turkey's talks with Europe. Cajoling Ankara into the new union turned out to be no mean task. Only after the French, Spanish and Italians had published the Rome appeal, in which they reassured everyone that talks with candidates for accession to the EU have nothing in common with the project of the Mediterranean Union and that it was only a matter of one more format for European politics, did the Turkish side agree.

Ankara's reckoning is quite clear-cut here. Of course it understands that participation in the Mediterranean union might consolidate its position as a regional superpower and increase its political and economic influence in the Near East. Neither is Turkey going to let go of the important diplomatic trump card of mediation between East and West. There is no better candidate to bridge the gap between the civilizations than Turkey, a major Muslim country which has managed to enter the Euro-Atlantic system, and both the Western centres and Muslim capitals understand this very well.

And finally, Turkey agreed to enter the new union with one eye on the strategic goal of its foreign policy, the EU. Ankara hopes that the Mediterranean will become a political arena in which it will find common interests with the French administration, to ultimately soften France's hard line on Turkey's accession to the EU.

Clearing a minefield

A number of the Arabic countries, too, are doubtful of the Mediterranean union's prospects. Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, for example, who boycotted the Paris summit, described Sarkozy's project as a "minefield", which will inevitably result in a wave of terrorist acts by radical groups. Gaddafi said in support of his opinion that the Mediterranean nations exercise different approaches to the Arab-Israeli conflict, the war in Iraq and crisis in Lebanon.

However, despite his scepticism, the Paris summit had a few pleasant surprises which inspire hope that the French initiative might turn out successfully after all. Firstly, we should mention the meeting between the French and Syrian presidents, Nicolas Sarkozy and Bashar al-Assad. Many observers said that it demonstrated to the world a new political approach from Damascus, which is ready for dialogue and openness.

Assad's visit to Paris was a breakthrough, after the diplomatic isolation of Syria for the last few years.  In 2005, following the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, some people accused Damascus of masterminding the crime. Among the most ardent critics of Syria were the United States and France, which accused it of interference in Lebanon's domestic problems and of supporting the radical organizations Hezbollah and Hamas. However, when the Lebanese politicians agreed in late May to elect the country's president and resolve all differences without resorting to arms, the West's position toward Damascus softened.

The Mediterranean summit showed that Europe is willing to give Syria a chance to enter a new phase in its relations with Europe. This is particularly true of France: inspired by the resumption of the Franco-Syrian dialogue, Nicolas Sarkozy also undertook to act as a mediator in the normalization of Syria's relations with Lebanon and Israel, which dramatically increased the value of Paris's international political assets.

France has managed to reconcile Syria and Lebanon, which had had no diplomatic relations since 1940s, when both countries became independent. Via Nikolas Sarkozy's mediation, the presidents of the two countries, Bashar al-Assad and Michel Suleiman, agreed to exchange diplomatic missions.

Yet another significant success gave new impetus to Syrian-Israeli dialogue. Contacts between the hostile Damascus and Tel-Aviv had been mediated by Turkey. And now, as Nicolas Sarkozy admitted, Syria has asked France to help establish a direct dialogue with Israel. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert also expressed his hope that direct talks with Syria would begin soon.

Progress in the dialogue between Israel and Palestine should also be noted. After talks in Paris between Ehud Olmert and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, the former admitted that the sides have never been so close to reaching a peace agreement.

Of course, the successes of the "Mediterranean" talks do not at all mean that there was a major breakthrough in the regulation of the complex tangle of Near Eastern problems. But it is quite an achievement in its own right that on the day of establishment of the new union, members demonstrated good will and a desire to achieve peace in the regions of conflict as soon as possible. It was previously thought that the Near East is a powder keg which no one in his right mind would try to involve in any integrationist group. Now, however, the idea of Israeli, Palestinian, Syrian and Lebanese participation in the same project does not seem so insane.

Levelling out differences between the North and the South

Yet another fundamental issue on the union's agenda has yet to be agreed by the participant countries. And this issue was raised by Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, who was elected one of the co-chairs of the summit, together with Nicolas Sarkozy, in his speech at the summit. Incidentally, the co-chairmanship was supposed to allow the countries of the Southern Mediterranean to realize their weight and responsibility: they have often complained in the past that no one asked their advice on dealing with regional problems. Thus the Mediterranean union expressed its readiness to begin institutional reform in this particular area of integration.

Back to Mubarak, however: he spoke about the need to bridge the "abyss between the standards of living in the developed European countries and those in the developing South Mediterranean region." This problem is pressing for Europe because it causes a great rise in illegal immigration. Hosni Mubarak noted that, by 2050, the population of the South Mediterranean will be 379 million people. This growth in population will require great effort to develop the infrastructure, health care, and to create new jobs. This is why measures should be taken now to reduce by 80% the difference in the standards of living between the populations of the Southern Mediterranean region and Europe. In the opinion of the Egyptian leader, cooperation within the framework of the new union will help deal with these problems.

"I am certain that the new union will help us move ahead towards a better future for our peoples," the Egyptian leader concluded. And, to all appearance, the other members of the new organization subscribe to his statement. What needs to be done now is to develop a concrete mechanism which will bridge the gap between the qualities of life of the peoples of the North and South Mediterranean.