Union for the Mediterranean to strengthen Barcelona Process

The French proposal for a Union for the Mediterranean once again hit the headlines last week after it was severely criticised by Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi at a mini Arab summit in Tripoli. Gaddafi, not known for his diplomatic language, remarked: "We are neither hungry nor dogs to be thrown bones."

He added: "If Europe wants to co-operate with us, they can do it with the Arab League or the African Union, and we will never allow Arab or African unity to be undermined." He also made it clear that he will not be present at the launch ceremony in Paris on July 13 and that the proposed union is an "insult" and "is doomed".

The Libyan President is not the only southern Mediterranean leader to have concerns about Nicolas Sarkozy's plan, which will see all EU member states join in a bloc with Mauritania, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Jordan, the Palestinian Authority, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, Albania, Croatia, Bosnia, Montenegro and Monaco.

Many of the Arab states, for example, are opposed to the Med. Union because of the involvement of Israel, which is also one of the reasons why the Barcelona Process - the partnership between the EU and the Mediterranean states launched in 1995 - has had such a disappointing record.

Algerian Foreign Minister Mourad Medelci is on record as saying: "The Mediterranean Union must not normalise relations between Israel and Arab countries. The process of normalisation with Israel is linked to other debates and commitments." Medelci also said that relations between the Arab states and the EU are unbalanced and "decisions belong to those who now have money and know-how". Walid Jumblatt, leader of the Lebanese Druze community, said recently that he thinks the union proposal is simply a French attempt to keep Turkey out of the EU.

So it is clear that many Arab leaders are certainly sceptical about this French initiative, which first surfaced during Sarkozy's presidential campaign last year. The initial French proposal - a non-starter in my opinion - envisaged a Mediterranean Union consisting of only EU Mediterranean states and southern neighbours. Understandably so, this was not at all welcomed by the non-Mediterranean EU member states.

I had interviewed the Dutch Minister for Europe, Frans Timmermans, last January and he made it very clear to me that Holland would never accept the EU being divided in two blocs. He had said: "I would warn of a situation where you would have half of the union concentrating on the Mediterranean and the other half on Eastern Europe. That would be a mistake. The Mediterranean is an issue for all of us. Yes, we like this idea of a Mediterranean Union but we want to be directly involved. We want to be part of this for many reasons such as trade and migration. Also, part of our population is directly from the Mediterranean."

Soon after Timmermans' comments, German Chancellor Angela Merkel rebuffed Sarkozy on his union plan at a joint press conference with him and emphasised that all EU states should be involved in such an initiative as all have interests in the Mediterranean. After the Sarkozy-Merkel meeting, a German official summed up the situation beautifully: "If we are going to spend European money, then everyone must sit at the table."

In March, Sarkozy succumbed to pressure from non-Mediterranean EU countries and agreed to water down his union of Mediterranean states and instead revitalise the Barcelona Process, which includes all EU members. The original Mediterranean Union project has been renamed 'Union for the Mediterranean'.

In reality it is simply a strengthening of the Barcelona Process, which was a good initiative but not much of a success story. The Barcelona Process is an assortment of overlapping economic, political and social agreements between the EU and its Mediterranean partners aimed at promoting political, security and commercial ties with the aim of creating a free trade area. It has unfortunately fallen hostage to the Palestinian-Israeli dispute and also to Arab claims that the process led to little EU investment into the southern states.

I hope the union will be a success. However, if the situation in the Middle East does not improve, there is little cause for optimism. On the other hand, peace, stability and economic progress in the Mediterranean are vital for the EU, so it is certainly worth giving the Barcelona Process a fresh impetus.

It is also important that this project is not presented to Turkey as an alternative to EU membership - because Ankara will not be part of it - and that the billions of euros in EU funds are well spent and make a difference to the everyday lives of the people living in the EU's partner countries in the Mediterranean.

• As I write, I have just heard that Irish voters have rejected the Lisbon Treaty. What a shame considering that Ireland has done so well as a result of its European Union membership. And what a massive PR failure by the 'Yes' bloc and the whole of the EU.

Such a treaty should have been approved because it is good for both Ireland and the whole of the EU. It will make the EU more manageable and better able to meet future challenges.

Yet, once again, the EU has been unable to explain the significance of a treaty to voters in clear simple terms. Brussels needs to re-examine its whole communications strategy and stop taking things for granted.