The Mediterranean Union: Political Feat or Colonialist Trojan Horse?

Ever since Sarkozy captured the Élysée Palace, I have been in turmoil whether to applaud or tut.

Fascinated by his lascivious past and the Bruni affair, the French President gained a touch of glamour that is rather lacking in our sedate British politicians.

Politically, he takes bold steps, and I find myself particularly bemused by the slanging match between Sarkozy and the Labour ne’er-do-well, Peter Mandelson.

Nevertheless, the inauguration of the Union for the Mediterranean, or Union pour la Méditerranée, is an intriguing pièce de résistance.

Comprising 43 members states dotted around the Mediterranean, the Union will address issues such as regional unrest, immigration and pollution.

Seating Palestine next to Israel, Greece beside Turkey, and Algeria alongside Morocco, the move is a clear aim by the French leader to broker peace on a plethora of levels.

Rather affectingly, the President exhibited a touch of the sentimentality that pervades his third wife’s music, as he simpered that the aim was to ensure the region’s people could love each other instead of making war.

Urging the Middle Eastern countries to end the deadly spiral of war and violence, as European nations had done by making peace which each other during twentieth century, Sarko was supported with much head nodding and express optimism by the Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas and his Israeli counterpart, Ehud Olmert.

Encompassing 756 million people, the list of member states is impressive:

Albania, Algeria, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Latvia, Lebanon, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mauritania, Morocco, Montenegro, Netherlands, Palestinian Territories, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey, and the United Kingdom.

While the move presents a new approach to the resolution of the Middle East conflict, and one that runs directly across American endeavours to broker peace in the region, critics have already indicated a number of flaws.

Primarily, the Union appears to lack substance, and diplomats say there are continuing disagreements over key issues such as how to address the Middle East peace process and a possible role for the Arab League.

Secondly, the conspicuous absence of the Libyan leader, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, has been exacerbated by reports that he views the Union as a new form of colonialism.

Thirdly, the notion of a pan-Mediterranean union is rather old-hat: in 1995 the Euromediterranean Partnership emerged with similar ideas.

While the Partnership has appeared redundant of late, the Union could pick up where the former left off.

Moreover, that the Union operates outside the auspices of the European Union, and essentially excludes northern European states, indicates a latent desire to enhance the French role in the global political arena.

That the Moroccan King Mohammed VI, sent his brother as a senior representative to the opening of the Union has also been played down by the French leader, in addition to suggestions that the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad had snubbed Israel by walking out of a speech by Olmert.

The dynamism of Sarko is captivating: whether he is triumphing the rights of French farmers or campaigning for the release of hostages in Colombia or Libya, he exudes a motivation that is unparalleled by contemporary European leaders.

Already, the Union has trumped the Partnership by drawing Israel, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, and Egypt to the table, where once they were absent.

That his actions elicit negative and positive responses is part of the political milieu; for now, however, I am intrigued enough to conclude that the Mediterranean Union certainly is one to watch.