The Union for the Mediterranean in the policy of France and Germany

19  Download (0)

Full text


The Union for the Mediterranean in

the policy of France and Germany

Rocznik Integracji Europejskiej nr 8, 63-80





DOI : 10.14746/rie.2014.8.5

The Union for the Mediterranean in the policy

of France and Germany

For centuries the Mediterranean has been France’s specialinfluencezone. In the MiddleAges, France, thegreatest Catholicempire, was naturally drawn to the holy places of Christianity, settingtheroutes of pilgrimages andcrusades. Its geograph­

icallocation had made France a Mediterranean power, whileshipowners andmer­ chants from Marseille looked eastwards, thinking about trade andthe riches of this

region. After France annexed Corsica (1768) and conquered Algeria (1832),these tendencies became even more pronounced. Napoleon Bonaparte’s adventurousex­

pedition to Egypt, the policyof protectorates inthe 19th century (Tunisia andMo­ rocco) andthatofmandatesofthe League of Nations after World War I(Syria and

Lebanon)confirmed the French presence intheregion (Godnin, Vince, 2012, p.38

and next).

After World War II, Paris gradually lost its coloniesin North Africa. The difficult partition with the colonial empire was symbolised by the bloody war in Algeria

(1954-1962) which broughtabout the collapse of the Fourth and the beginning of the

Fifth French Republic. Overtheyears, however, diplomatic endeavours in the area of

economy andculture allowed France to restoreits influence in the region. Itwas thanks to Francethat the European Community introducedspecial measures (The Yaounde Convention) in 1963 to facilitate trade betweenthe ECand francophone countries in

this region(Baszkiewicz, 1999, chapters 10 and 11).

German interestinthis part of Europe and Africa was markedly smaller, despite German active colonial policy after its unification in 1871.German endeavours to par­ ticipateinco-deciding thefate of Morocco in 1911 eventuallyfailed, however, andEm­ peror Wilhelm II hadto accept the fact that France was the dominantpowerin the

Maghreb (Czapliński, 1992).

During the Cold War, the US Sixth Fleet, France and the UK were the strongest

powers in theMediterranean. WestGermany didnot get involved,forobvious reasons limiting itselfto providing financial andmoral support to Israel. After the Iron Curtain

fell,public opinionin Germany was most interestedin terroristattacksagainstGerman tourists in Egypt.

After reunification, Germanyhadneitherthe concept northevision of how to de­

velop its policy towards theMediterranean. The government of Helmut Kohl took part in the establishment of the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership, butit lacked consistency and perseverance. Thepriorities of the Germanpresidency of theCouncil of theEuro­ pean Union in 1994, 1999 andeven in 2007, approachedthe issue of cooperationwith


Owing to the commitment of France,Italy andSpain, the importance of the Medi­

terranean in thepolicy of the European Communityand, later,of the European Union

was consistently increasing. Onthe one hand,thestates of theSouth purchased techno­ logically advanced industrialproducts aswell as lightindustry products(accounting for

9.7% of EU exports in 2007). Imports from the Mediterranean (Morocco, Tunisia, Libya, Algeria, Egypt,Israel, Palestinian Authority, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Tur­

key)accounted for around 7.7% of EU import, traditionally including energy resources

(20%), but also foodstuffs,textiles, machineryand equipment (EuropeanUnion, 2014). The establishment of the European Union and its enormous expansion to the East and South-East of Europe resulted in an intensified Mediterraneanpolicy. On Novem­ ber27-28, 1995, the Barcelona Declarationwas signed, establishing the Barcelona Process. It was initiated by twelve South and East Mediterranean countries (Egypt,Is­ rael, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria,Turkey, Malta, Cyprus and the

Palestinian Authority), accompanied by fifteenEUmember states (Austria,Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Spain,Finland, Greece, Sweden, France, Ireland,the Netherlands,

Luxembourg, Italy,Portugal and the United Kingdom). Thescope ofthis organisation’s

activities was divided into three sectors: politicaland security partnership,economic and financial partnership as well associal, cultural and humanitarian partnership. At present, the programme formally includes 43 states (a totalof over 756 mlncitizens)

(Wojcik, 2008).

The formula adoptedwithinthe Barcelona Processtranslated intopolitical and eco­

nomic cooperation, stabilisationof the regionandstrengthened social dialogue. This was tobe supported by association agreementswith differentcountries inthe region and by special programmes of financialsupport. In the first period,theimplementation

of the Barcelona Process was financed from the budgets of union projects:the Accom­ panying Measures (Mesures d’Accompagnement) MEDAand MEDAII, as well asthe resources provided by the EuropeanInvestment Bank.

TheEuropean Neighbourhood Policy (ENP),establishedin2004, approached EU policytowards its closest neighbours and partners in a differentand more balanced

manner.The Barcelona Process inevitably lost inimportance as anew instrument was initiated, namely the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI).

This became operational in January 2007, replacing the earlier TACIS and MEDA

programmes.In theperiodfrom 2007-2013, the European Commission declaredto al­

locate approximately 12bln euro to the ENPI-related programmes.Tenpartnercoun­ tries (Algeria, theWestBank and the Gaza Strip, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon,Morocco,

Syria, Tunisia, Israel and Libya)received 1.3 bln euro from thissourcein 2007. Althoughthe tenth anniversaryof the Barcelona Processwas celebratedin 2005, and new operatingprogrammes wereadopted for theyears to come, it was noticeable that EUactivitiesin the Mediterranean were declining (Rezolucja, 2005).TheMadrid summit of theEuropean Council in December 1995, resolved to startEU enlargement

toincludeEast European, Central and East European andSouth European states.This extremely ambitious project involved bothEU resourcesand the attentionof theEuro­ pean Commission. Theprocess ofincluding the countries from theseregions in theEU

was primarily supportedby areunited Germany,whichassumed the role of ‘advocate’ ofCentral European interests, usinga variety of arguments in Brussels. This direction


of EU expansion was nevera priority forFrance. The wide opening of thefledglingEU

contrasted withthe strong tendency of Paris to focus on the deepened cooperation be­ tween member states, in order to curbtheindependence ofa reunited Germany. In the

early 1990s, Paris didnot get involvedin the accession of new democracies to the EC/EU, assumingsomewhat fatalistically that Central European countries were tradi­

tionally ready to cooperate with aunited Germany and wouldbecome its ‘clients’ in the future. Germanywas not to be indirectly assisted in strengthening its influence in the

EU. French reluctance was to a significant degree reflected in this country’sextreme

procrastination overfurther enlargement, criticising the expenses related to theEastern

l’élargissement and demanding that EU budgetary resourcesbe allocated tothedevel­

opment of the Mediterranean (Koszel, 2003; Deubner 1999).

In France’s view, another serious matter concerned the necessity ofholdingback the

European aspirations of Turkey,which in 2005was allowedto start accessionnegotia­

tions with the EU. The French right wing didnot consider Turkey to be a European

country,it feared the influx of immigrants, the Islamisation of Europe and increased

crime rate.Turkey’s accessionto theEU would have significantly weakened theposi­

tion of France. With a largerpopulation and area, Turkey would have ‘degraded’ France, whichwould have become the third power in theEU(followingGermany and

Turkey). France sought a way to discourageTurkey frommembership,whileoffering it close cooperation and an adequate, strategic position in the region, withinthe frame­

work of ‘privileged partnership’. This conceptmet the full approvalof the German

Christian Democrats and the newGerman Chancellor, AngelaMerkel, who took power in the autumn of2005 (Koszel,2008; Kumoch, 2011).

Onaccount ofits historical traditionand long presence in North Africa, France was highly protectiveofits zone of influence in thisregion. It did not welcome frequent vis­

its paid by US diplomats in theMaghreb,it also feared Chinese economic expansion there.France tried to use its presence in North Africa to reverse thetrends thatwere in

France’s opinion unfavourable and were aimed at enlarging the EU to the east and south-east. Thedecision to start accession negotiations with six East,Central andEast, and South European countries was to be madeatthe meeting of the EuropeanCommis­

sion in Luxembourg inDecember 2007.

Therefore, itcomes as no surprise that the issue of intensifiedcooperation in the

Mediterranean was oneof the key topics of the presidential election campaign in France in 2007, withtheexception of the socialists, whose candidate, SégolèneRoyal, made no

referenceto thisissue. One candidate for the highest office in France, Minister of the In­

terior, Nicolas Sarkozy,followed theguidelines ofhisclosest advisor, theEurosceptic Henri Guaino,and a economicexpert,Jean-Louis Guigou,and decidedto establish the

MediterraneanUnion (UnionMéditerranée). In this mannerhe wantedto emphasise

theleadingrole of France in the Mediterranean and to commit EU resources to imple­ ment thisplan, which was equallyimportant. This was to counterbalance the EU’s com­

mitment to the East, ensure a certain equilibrium and blockTurkish accession bymeans of appreciatingits role as themost important partner withinthe Mediterranean Union

(Marines, Thorel, 2013, p. 92).

Sarkozy officially presented the Mediterranean Union projectatan electionrally in


France as a European, and atthe same time Mediterranean state had to takethe initiative to establish such a union of Mediterranean countries,the same wayithad initiated the

European Union project in the past. This was anelement of theproject intended to re­ store France’sgrandeurand create a marenostrum. The President enumeratedGreece,

Italy, Portugal, Spain andCyprusamong the initiators of the campaign (DieZukunft,


This direction of France’s intensified foreign policy, outlined by Sarkozy, toagreat

extent corresponded with French expectations and sentiments. As earlyas the 1990s, acertain fashion for North Africa spread among French intellectuals. The merits of French colonialismwere remembered, and itscontributionto the economic andsocial

advancementofNorth African countries, as wellas the fascinationof thelocal elites with French culture and language. The right-wing candidate for thepresidency needed

a catchy slogan to remindthe descendants of the pieds noirs oftheir French culturalher­

itage and encourage them to votefor him. Consequently, criticism was limited and the

presidential initiative was met with sympathy(Schmid, 2007,p. 13-23).

After theelections andhis investiture (May 16, 2007), President Sarkozy startedto fulfilhis election promises to setup a MediterraneanUnion. Inhis first speech as Presi­ dent, given atthe Place de laConcorde inParis,Sarkozydeclared thatthe projectof the Unionwasmorethan mere election propaganda,hetreated itseriously and intendedto implementit soon. After initial public opinionsurveys, made in the summer of2007, at a traditional meetingof Frenchambassadors in Paris,heldon August26, President

Sarkozyreiteratedthat he attached great importance tothe implementation ofhis ideas

and askedthediplomats todisseminate this idea.This topic wasan inseparable element of his speeches given during his visit to North Africa (Tangier in October and Algiers

and Cairo inDecember).

Initially, the Mediterranean Union as seen by the French leader was to run parallelto

the European Union, without anyinstitutionallinks. France, Turkey and possiblyEgypt

were toenjoy a privileged position, and play a key role insolvinginternationalconflicts in this area and developing cross-cultural dialogue. Sarkozy was also interested in the economicbenefits andpotential expansion of thesalesmarket forFrench commodities

in return foroil, gas and other resources.

While in Tangier (23 October, 2007), Sarkozy defined inhis speech which countries

would shape thenew Mediterranean Union. The President openlysaid thatitwas a politi­ cal proj ectaimed atcreating a Frenchzone of influence in the Mediterranean.To a certain

extent, it was alsosupposed to be a form ofcompensationfor theprivileged position Ger­

manyenjoyed in Centraland Eastern Europe (Demesmay,2008, p. 373-384).The plan for thenew Union wastoencompass only coastal Mediterranean countries. The President was confident thatthe countries of thisregion had sufficient capacities tofaceuptothe political,economic and cultural challenges. Countries that wereinterested in the Mediter­ ranean but werenotlocated along the rim would be offered the role ofobservers.

He encouraged the European Commission toparticipatein the preparatorywork un­ der the principle of “cooperation and complementarity,” the same way tradeunionsdid, but in general,EU institutions wereto beexcluded from thisprocess. President Sarkozy

invited all Mediterranean leaders to an inauguration summit inFrance in July 2008


It could beeasily noticedthat,initially,the Frenchideas lackedclarity and concise­ ness, andtherewere discrepanciesbetween theElyséePalace and Quai d’Orsay. There were discussions whetherto extendthe Mediterranean Unionwestwards, whileother politicians and experts advocated the idea of including allcoastal countries, including Croatia and Libya. Broader plans envisagedthe extension of the existingMediterra­ nean Partnership (EUROMED)to includeregional organisations such as the African Union. The participation of the European Commissionasthe representative of the Eu­

ropean Union was deemed certain. The statesthat were interested in this form of coop­ eration but were notstrictly located in the Mediterranean, suchas Portugal or - more remotely- Germany,could apply forobserver status (Schmid, 2007,p. 9).

The initialresponse of the most important partners - theaddressees ofthis proposal - was not encouraging. Spain feared its own role in the BarcelonaProcess wouldbe

marginalised, therefore,Prime Minister JoséLuisZapatero observed that theycould

only talk about the ‘Barcelona Process plus’. Italy was waiting on developments and

theUnitedKingdom declared itwould not providefinancialsupport to thenewFrench project. Turkeywas quick torealise thatthis offer was supposed to curb TurkishEuro­ pean ambitionsand so showed nointerestwhatsoever (Schmid, 2008, p. 8).

Thesouthernstates addressed by the French plansshowedsomeinterest, but it wasfar

from general approval.Themostvehement criticism in the region wasvoiced by Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi, whoapproached Sarkozy’sprojectas an element of imperial policyintended to destroypan-Arabian unity. Many Arab countries found the prospect of Israelipartnershipdifficult toaccept.Tomakethings even more complicated,theinterests

ofthree countries fromthefrancophoneMaghreb (Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria) were in

conflict due to Algerian-Moroccan competition in the Western Sahara(Albioni, 2008). Sarkozymanaged, albeitwith difficulties,topersuade the leaders of the Romance

countries, Romano Prodi andJosé Luis Zapatero,to approve the project onlyaslate as

December 20,2007. Turkey was promised that its accession tothe MediterraneanUn­ ion would not hinder accession negotiations with the European Union.

As a result ofdiscussions andtensions between the ElyséePalace andQuai d’Orsay, three versions of the French planemerged: (1)a comprehensive approach,where the

members would encompass the countries already participatingin the BarcelonaPro­ cess within the European Union (from 1995), accounting for the membership of

39 countries (the EU-27 plustwelve states of the South: Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt, Israel, the Palestinian Authority, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, Libya and

Mauritania). The membership of Albania, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina as well as Montenegrowasalsoconsidered,whichwould mean 43 states altogether; (2) a restric­

tive approach, or the 6+6 formula, withsixnorthern (Spain, France, Italy, Malta, Portu­

gal and Greece)and six southernstates (Algeria, Libya, Morocco,Mauritania,Tunisia

and Egypt); (3) the ‘coastal countries’ approach, accounting for 25 stateswithaccess to

the Mediterranean Sea (Spain, Portugal, France, Monaco, Italy, Slovenia, Croatia,

Bosnia and Herzegovina,Montenegro, Albania, Greece, Turkey, Malta and Cyprus, to­

getherwith Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Jordan, Israel, the Palestinian Authority, Lebanon, Syriaand Mauritania). AmajorityofFrench politicians and diplo­

matswere in favourof themost restrictive formula, to prevent accusations of doubling


From thebeginning,Germany approached the Frenchplanswith the utmost caution, seeingmorequestion marks than concrete proposals. They didnot treat Sarkozytalking

about the necessity to establish the MediterraneanUnion seriously, considering his

words as a worthlesselement of the election campaign. Theybelieved that in this way

Sarkozy wastrying to win voters in southern France, where the National Front was par­

ticularly strong.

Berlin was carefully watching Sarkozy as the Minister of the Interior. His 2007 elec­

tion programme wasattractive, since it assumed deepened trans-Atlanticcooperation, reluctance towards Turkish integration with the European Union and a critical attitude

towards the imperial ambitionsofRussia. Chancellor Merkel, however, did not quite appreciatetheFrench leader’s hyperactivity and his notalways well thought-out ideas

(Radke,2012, p. 37-40). Merkel treated the latest ideaof the MediterraneanUnion,

which had not been agreed with Berlin, as yet another manifestation of French unilateralism which neglected theinterests ofother EU countries. She thoughtthat, like in the early 1990s, when Paris was forcing the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership, France was trying to undermine European solidarity again. She did not like the fact that Sarkozywas pursuing the pathofbuilding a zone of intereststhat wasbeyondGerman

control, thereby referring to the historical presence of colonial France in North Africa. Berlin did notconceal itsscepticism oritsviewthat this ideawould doubletheBarce­

lona Process, which Germany had criticised before, anyway. Chancellor Merkel be­ lieved that theproblems of illegal immigration,environmentalprotection, a free trade zone and the peace process in theMiddle Eastconcerned the entire European Unionand

shouldbe resolved together. She argued that the French project raisedthe risk of the Eu­

ropean Union being divided so that Germany would only be concerned with Eastern Europe,whereas France - with the South. Shewas also critical of the idea to limitthe list ofpotential participants of thenewinitiative to those located in the Mediterranean.

She knew that the idea of excludingEUinstitutions from this process and establishing newones instead would becriticised in France as well.Attempts to appoint French so­

cialist ex-Prime Minister, Michel Rocard,as the head of the MediterraneanCommis­

sion failed (Marten, 2008, p. 74-79; Jiinemann, 2005,p. 7-13).

The increasing French criticismof the Barcelona Process, accusing it particularly of

not having any long-term vision of developing contacts between theEU and Mediterra­ nean countries, was received negativelyin Germany. Germany feltoffended, as the German presidency in the Council of theEuropean Union placed significant emphasis on the implementationof the European Neighbourhood Policy.Berlin deflected French accusations of the lackof moresignificantsuccesses in the BarcelonaProcess.The EU

budget for 1995-2007 allocated 16 bln euro for this purpose,70% of whichwas actu­

ally utilised. Germany indicatedthatin thefinancial perspective for2007-2013, thatis for a much shorter period, the Barcelona Processallocated means of around16 bln euro as well, whichwas evidence that the European Unionapproached the issue of the Medi­

terraneanPartnershipseriously (Merkel undSarkozy, 2008;Berschens, Rinke,2008).

German politicians realised that EU institutions supported theirstance.The Euro­ pean Union watched the consistency of thewholeinitiativeunder the ENP and looked

askance at theexclusive Frenchproject. BrusselsresentedParis forcriticising theBar­


tions. Guarding the consistencyof the entire ENP, Brussels was awareof the riskof division and intensified internalconflictsbetweenmember states.

Atthe end of2007, assisted by the media,theGerman government attempted to tor­ pedo the French initiative, believing itwas disadvantageous for the European Union.

Chancellor Merkel and the Minister ofForeign Affairs, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, ac­ cused France ofdisintegrating theUnion by its attemptsto implement its own interests

at theexpense of the commonbudget. The German government eventriedto persuade memberstates to limit their financial contributionstothe development of theMediter­

ranean Union.Thiswas also beneficial for the coalition partner, the SPD, as Minister

Steinmeier decided to involveGermany inrelationswith Russia, invitingit totake part in a“Partnership forModernisation” (Ratka, 2014, p. 112-113; Ayad, 2011, p. 18).

Chancellor Angela Merkelpresented theposition of Germanyat the meeting of ex­

perts in Berlin on 5 December, 2007. She statedthat if a Mediterranean Union encom­ passing coastal stateshad been builtwith EU money, others could say“let’sbuild an Eastern European Union, for instance with Ukraine... In my opinion itis dangerous. The responsibility for the Mediterranean is asimportant for the north of theEUasthe borders with Russia andUkraine are for the south.” In Merkel’s opinion,astrong focus on these issues could blow the European Unionup (Sarkozy, 2007).

It was clear that theinitial negative response of Germany raised serious concernsin Paris. Sarkozy didnot expect such an attitude. After all,he did try to embed his plan in the existing Mediterranean Partnership and theENP. He wasdisappointed thatimpor­ tant French ideasof how toactivate the Mediterranean and its relations withtheEuro­ pean Union were received coldly and scepticallyinstead of enjoying the expected approval(Schmid,2008).

On6 December, 2007, at a press conference organisedduring aninformalmeeting

of thetwoleaders in Paris, Merkel leftno doubts that the French project had to involve

the entire Union (“die Mittelmeerregion istunser aller AufgabeinEuropa”) and both

countrieshad to walkhand inhand to implementpartnership programmeswithEast Eu­

ropean andMediterranean states.Sarkozy surrendered andsaidat thesameconference

that workwouldcommence to involveall interested EUstates inthe MediterraneanUn­ ion project(Pressekonferenz, 2007).

The German counteraction in the European Council and European Parliament turned out to be successful. TheGerman government’s toughstance, supportedamong

othersby PolishPrimeMinister Donald Tusk, forced Sarkozy torevise his plans. Ac­

cording to the agreement reached in Paris, the issue of therapprochement of bothgov­

ernments was to behandled by the Director of one of the Departments at the Federal Chancellery and Advisor onForeign and Security Policy to the Federal Chancellor,

Christoph Heusgen,anda former ambassador of France in Washington and president

Sarkozy’s diplomatic advisor,Jean-David Levitte.

The breakthroughoccurredin Hannover on 3 March, 2008, ataninformal French- -German summitheldunderthepretext of the openingofCeBIT computer fairs. The

FrenchPresident agreed to extend his plan toall27 memberstates and emphasised that Franceand Germany “were unanimous both in fundamental issues and details.” Merkel

diplomatically responded that, in her view, the cooperation of theEUwith theMediter­


finesse withwhich Chancellor Merkel redirected the project as shedesired. First, Chan­ cellery experts ensured that the planning of theinitiativewas conducted in Brusselsin­

stead of Paris.Then the Chancellorinvolved Poland and Bulgaria, who demanded that the EUdevelop tighter ties withUkraine and BlackSeacountries. Poland was undoubt­

edly a beneficiary ofthis conflict, because it gainedthe approval and support from

Berlin to develop the concept of the Eastern Partnership, initiated with Sweden

(Komelius, 2008; Stark, 2008,p. 235-240).

Inline withFrench-German arrangements,at a meeting held on 13-14 March, 2008,

the EuropeanCouncil approvedthe principleof the Mediterranean Union whichwas, asbriefly stated,“toinclude the MemberStatesof theEU and thenon-EUMediterra­ nean coastal states.” It invited the Commission topresent to the Councilthe necessary

proposals for definingthemodalities of whatwould becalled the “Barcelona Process: Union for the Mediterranean” (Oświadczenie, 2008).

After the Hannover meeting, France committeditselfto thespeedyimplementation

of theproject which was to bespecified byJuly 2008 anddeveloped duringtheFrench presidency of the EU Council(July-December 2008). On 13 July, a dayprior to the

Frenchnational holiday, Sarkozy indeed managed to gather the leaders of 43 states, joined by the Arab League. Delegations of all EUstates made theirappearance there, while MuammarGaddafi was absent. France succeededin seating SyrianPresident Bashar al-Sadat andIsraeliPrime Minister Ehud Olmert at the same table. The joint declaration published afterthe meeting featuredthe premise for the new organisation

(“Barcelona Process: Unionfor the Mediterraneanaimsto build on that consensus to

pursue cooperation politicaland socio-economicreform and modernisation on the ba­

sis of equality and mutual respect for each other’s sovereignty”) (Déclaration com­ mune,2008).

Thetasks that had beendefined earlier and were adopted atthesummit involved the following: (1) de-pollution, waste disposal, protectionof biological resources in the

Mediterranean underthe special strategy for the protection of the environment, which was tobe implementedin 42 projects at a cost of2 blneuro; (2)the construction of

a highway from Casablanca to theMiddleEast, andof new connectionsbetween Medi­

terranean ports; (3) the creation of civilprotectionstructures (management of natural disastercrises), education andtraining oncrisis prevention; (4) an ambitious projectto advancerenewableenergy on the basis of solarpower plants; (5) thedevelopment of cooperation in the area of highereducation (establishment of the first

Euro-Mediterra-neanUniversity in Portoroź, Slovenia, to be followedby anotherone in Fez,Morocco;

(6) support for smalland medium businessdevelopment financed from theFacility for Euro-Mediterranean Investment and Partnership instrument (FEMIP) (Déclaration,

2008; Hauser, 2014, p. 54-55).

The structures of the Union for the Mediterranean (UfM), plannedin the July decla­

ration, were designedby the end of 2008. There was a dispute over the location of the

Union’s Secretariat. Sarkozy suggestedTunis, whereas Germanyopted forBrussels, for practical reasons. Finally, asproposed bySpain atthe meeting of EUMinisters of Foreign Affairs,heldin Marseille on November4, 2008,the permanent secretariat (of one Secretary General supported by five Secretaries-Advisors) waslocated in Barce­ lona,where itwould perform technical and executive functions. The management of


theUnion wasto be exercised by the co-presidency composed of the representative of

theEU state currently holding the presidency of theEU Council and the representative ofonestate from the South (beginning with France and Egypt). Theteam of Senior Officials was to constitute a permanent body obliged to hold regular meetings,prepare expert meetings, and draw up projects and reports. The Euro-Mediterranean Parliamen­

tary Assembly (EMPA), operating since 2004, decided to rename itself theParliamen­

tary Assembly -Union for the Mediterranean in2010. The Assembly is an advisory

body operating underthe BarcelonaProcess. Itsparticipants includemembers of parlia­ ment fromEUcountries and the Mediterranean Partnership (Algeria, the Palestinian

Authority, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon,Morocco,Syria,Tunisia and Turkey), mem­

bers of the European Parliament,as wellas themembers of parliamentsof Mediterra­ nean partnercountries (Albania, Bosniaand Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro and

Monaco) andof the Moorish parliament(Zgromadzenie Parlamentarne,2014).

Another French-Germanclash concerned the issue of establishingthe Mediterranean Bank, whichwassupposedtoservice Union projects in terms of finance. The Germans rejected French proposals and agreed only to a branch of the European Investment

Bank to be set up. IgnoringGerman reservations, in May 2010, French state-ownedfi­ nancial institutions establisheda special capital association InfraMed withcapitalof

385 mln euro (and a targeted 1 bln euro) to provide financial servicesto the develop­ mentof cities, localinfrastructure and power networks.

Asmentioned above, the French presidency of the EU Council, held in the second

half of2008, was supposed togive momentumto the UfM project, but it did not. The

Russian-Georgian war, whichbroke outin August,forced PresidentSarkozy to become actively involved in Eastern Europe. On27 December, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict

inGaza broke out, leading to increased tension in the Middle East. All this coincided withtheglobal financial crunch, whichrapidly spread all over the euro zone and en­

forced intensive countermeasures to be taken,primarily byFrance and Germany.

The French presidency of the EU Councilraisedthe expectation as to thedevelop­ ment ofcooperation in the new form, therefore the factthatthe new initiative was not

operational in 2009 generated increased frustration.Inthis atmosphere Spain assumed

the presidencyof theEU Council, fully aware of thechallenges to unblockthepolitical

standstill, launch theUnion’s Secretariat andimplement new areas ofcooperation. The prolonged discussions over where the organisation shouldbe headquartered, the roleto

be given to Israel and the position of Secretary Generalundoubtedly had a negative im­ pacton the whole initiative. First, the planning and outlining of theproject was done in great haste, and then its implementation turnedout to be chaotic. It took nineteen

months to appoint a Jordanian,AhmedKhalaf Masadeh as the Union’s Secretary Gen­

eral, who then stepped down after several months (Parmentier. 2011).

Spain, asthe initiator and promoter of the Barcelona Process, aspired tocontinue to strengthen regionalintegration in Southern Europe. Spain wasfacing a mostdifficult challenge to end the political stalemate betweenIsrael and Arab states, whichhad para­

lysedtheoperations of the UfM. Spanish diplomacy was involved in the Middle East

with poorresults. It wasmoresuccessful in thearea of strengthening bilateral relations

between the EUand Morocco, Tunisia, Israel and Jordan, whichwas included in its programmefor the presidency (Nowak,2010).


After twoyears of the Union operating, there were nogreatersuccesses to speak of. The German government reported to the Bundestag inJuly 2010 that planninghad startedto implement the strategyfor the protection ofmarine environment in the Medi­

terranean and for bettersuppliesofpotablewater. The sameconcerned the issue of

transport and the North Africanhighway. There were21projects developed concerning civilprotection andprevention of environmental disasters, the organisational frame­

work for thesolar project was outlined, and thesetupand operationofSMEswas facili­ tated. Theestablishment of the Euro-Mediterranean University (EMUNI)in Porterez,

Slovenia,was atangible success. The University created a network of 142 membersin 37 countries. Its tasksinvolved education and the exchange ofstudentsand scholars.

Only one German highereducation institution was involved in this project, namely the

private InternationalSchoolof Management, with branches inMunich, Frankfurt am

Mein, Hamburg,Cologne andDortmund (ZweiJahre, 2010; Ratka, 2010, p.13-14).

Theimplementation of theUfMproject was interrupted by theArab revolutionsthat

started in Tunisia in December 2010 to rapidly spread to Egypt and Libya.Thesesur­

prised France, which maintainedclose relations withthe dictatorsofTunisia, Ben Ali,

and Egypt, Hosni Mubarak,to the very end. It is worth remindingthat merely three days prior to Ben Ali fleeing abroad, the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, Michèle Alliot-Marie,offered him helpin dispersingtheprotesters and she did not conceal her

mistrust towards the moderate opposition Islamic organisation Al-Nahda (theRenewal party)which was the engine behind theTunisian transformations.This did not demon­

strateFrance’s being particularly well-informed of theTunisianreality,as Francewas

claiming. As in an attempt to counterbalance the bad impressionandcriticalcomments, President Sarkozy rapidlytookthe side of the Libyan opposition and opted for a mili­

tary intervention. Thismust have flabbergasted Gaddafi, whowas consideredto be

France’sfaithful friend and wasbelieved to have covertlyfinanced the 2007 election campaign ofSarkozy (Financement, 2014; Sarkozy, 2014). TheFrench President also

became quickly involved in acampaign against President Bashar al-Sadat, assembling

a military coalition againsthim, albeitunsuccessfully(Schafer, 2013,p. 7).

From the very beginning, Germany was on the side of thetransformations in North Africa. Several months afterBen Ali was overthrown,on 12 February, 2011, German Minister of Foreign Affairs, Guido Westerwelle, arrived in Tunis, highly appreciating

the paceofdémocratisation there,anddeclaring German aid at the initial amount of 3 mln eurofor the fundfor democracy. Healso visitedAlgeria, Libya andTunisiain

February 2012. His most successful journey was marked by German promises to aid the newdemocratic governmentand further stabilisationof the situationin the country.Un­ der theframework of thestrategicPartnership for Transformation,Germany declaredit

was allocatingaround30mln eurofor the creationof work places, vocational training,

scholarship programmesand improving thequalifications of state officials (Unruhen, 2011; Brossier, 2012). In March 2012, the head of Tunisian government, Hamadi Jebali, talked to ChancellorMerkel in Berlin, where regular German-Tunisianinter­ governmental consultations were announced.

The most acuteGerman-French dispute, however, concerned the events inLibya.

Whereas France, theUKand US, both within the NATOand outsidethe alliance, pro­ vided active support in terms of arms and food to the insurgents fighting against


Gaddafi, Germanyremained highlyrestrained, limiting itselfto offering moral support and theaidprovided by a group of Germanmilitaryofficers working in NATO logis­ tics. To defendGermany, itcanbesaid that fromthe beginning it declared sympathy for

the Arab revolutionaries and condemned the Libyan dictator. German diplomacy sup­

portedthe suspension of the UN embargo on the supplies ofarms for theinsurgents and was in favour of criminal proceedings to commenceagainstthe Libyan leader before

the International Court ofJustice in The Hague. Germany was also known to be sceptical asconcerned military measuresintended to protect civilians.Along withthe

US government,Berlintried notto take adefined stance. The ultimate response was to dependon the Arab League’s participation and actual commitment to this cause. These

conditions were quickly fulfilled, and the US administration opted in theUN Security

Council for a wide ban onflights over the area occupied by the insurgents. Although Berlinsympathisedwiththe objectives of theresolution, on 17 March,2011, the Ger­ man representative in theUN Security Council abstainedfrom voting on the adoption of the documentin support ofNATO operations in Libya(Kruk, 2011, p. 173).

Germany’sstance generated exceptionally criticalresponses in France,theUK and

the US, as well as among theGerman politicalelite. There were voices indignant at the fact that Germany did not vote alongside its old allies, butwentwith the new ones

- Russia, China,India and Brazil (Herzinger, 2011; Varwick, 2011).

Underthe pressureof mounting difficulties, towards the end of his office Sarkozy

lost his zeal inpushing for theUnion for theMediterranean. There also emerged dis­

crepanciesbetween theUnion’s Secretariat and the European Commission in Brussels concerning the divisionof powers. EU countries became increasingly reluctantto fi­ nancethisproject. The retiring Secretary General, Ahmad Masa’deh, complained in his

interviews that the Union’sbudget had been reduced by 60%. The formerEuropean

Commissionerfor Enlargement, GüntherVerheugen, alsoaccused EUmember states of a lackofinterestin expanding cooperation with North Africa(Sebald,2013).

The new plan, presented in Malta in October 2012 by new French President,

François Hollande, was radically different from Sarkozy’s original ideas,that tended to

focus on concreteundertakings. The new idea wasto make the Union a kind of execu­

tiveentityofthe European Neighbourhood Policy. The incumbent Secretary Generalof

the Unionfor theMediterranean, the Moroccan diplomat, Fathallah Sijilmassi, first and foremost was supposed to implement regionalintegration projects, such as theNorth African highway and theextension of the Erasmus Mundi programme. French Minister for Women’s Rights, Najat Vallaud-Belkacem, was among the organisers ofa confer­

ence to promote women’s rights inthe region in 2013 (Conference,2013).

AttheMalta meeting itwas resolved toset up acommonunitto combatdrug smug­ gling, organised crime and illegal immigration. France putforwarda jointindustrial

strategy aimedatthe creation ofnew workplaces,facilitatingbusinessoperations and cooperationin the area of transport of goods and people.

Repudiating his predecessor’s ambitious project,Hollande intendedtogive a more

modest form to the Union by means of providing a forum for dialogue among five

North Africanstates (Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria,Libya and Egypt) and fiveMediterra­ nean states (Spain,Italy,France,PortugalandGreece). The purpose of such narrowing


conflict fromthe everyday agenda, as ithad frequentlyhamperedMediterranean coop­ erationin thepast (Hollande,2012).

Itwas quiteeasy to notice thatFrance’s interest was focused on threestates:Mo­

rocco, AlgeriaandTunisia. These were the targets ofintensified activities ofFrench di­

plomacy and business circles. Atthe same time, France became increasingly interested

in the Sub-Saharan region. Onaccount of the enormous problems generated by intense local conflicts, povertyand backwardness, the Sahel area called for a coordinated aid campaign, and France was not going to shun this responsibility.

Germany continued to treat the European Neighbourhood Policy, alongside the Bar­

celona Process and the Union for theMediterranean, asimportant instruments to exert influence on the Mediterranean. Berlin became financially involved in the establish­ ment of theSecretariat in Barcelona and tookan active part in EU projects concerning

solar powerplants and wind farms.The Anna Lindh Euro-Mediterranean Foundation

for theDialoguebetween Cultures, established in 2005, became involved in this coop­ erationon theGerman side, fosteringcultural exchange andcooperation between insti­

tutionsthat supported the emergence ofa civil society. Headquartered inAlexandria, the Foundation operated through a network of national institutions in all European countries and Mediterranean partnercountries, implementing its own projects partici­

pated in by organisations from Northand South. Numerous joint academic initiatives

with Mediterranean universities emerged, and in 2008 the Euro-Mediterranean Univer­ sityin Portoroź was established.Political summits were accompanied by Civil Society

Forums that attractedenormous interest from non-governmental organisationsfromthe

entire region, who could exchange experiences and plan joint projects (Praussello,


OnGermaninitiative, the European Union adopted the document onthe “Partner­ ship for Democracy and SharedProsperity with the SouthernMediterranean” in March 2012. This new strategywas tobe basedon supporting democracyand theimproved mobility of persons, but it alsostressed combating illegal immigration,supportingthe economic development thatis conducive tosocial inclusion, facilitatingthedevelop­ ment oftradeand investment, strengthening sectoral cooperation, particularly in the area of energy, and financial help ensured by the EuropeanInvestmentBank and the

European Bank forReconstruction andDevelopment (Partnerstwo,2012).

Germany believed that the Unionfor the Mediterranean had not exhausted itspoten­

tial. This could beseen in German effortstoreplace the co-presidencyof the Union, ex­ ercised bymemberstates,by theEU, and in particular by theEuropean External Action Service andthe EuropeanCommission. Sincethe autumn of 2012, the UfM has been

jointly managed bythe EuropeanUnion and Jordan. The German government contin­

ues to believe thatthe UfM can stabilisethe situation in the entireregion,influence its security,protection of human rightsand counteract illegal immigration intothe Euro­ pean Union (Schafer, 2013, p. 9; Rossa,2010, p. 149-166).

German commitmentto the UfM project was exercised under theslogan of“peace,

stability, prosperity.” German politicians emphasised theimportance of controlling and preventing illegal immigration from North Africa,combating Islamic terrorism,envi­ ronmental protection, the creation of democratic institutions and humanrights.As far as economics are concerned, the German governmentexpressed particular interest in


constructing solar power plants in NorthAfrica,andwind farms. Theissues of obtain­ ingelectricity fromthe African desert were handled by an informalgroup of experts

forming the Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation (TREC) network.

The initially private initiative, named DESERTEC, was officially supported by the German government. The erection ofsolar power plants in theSahara, and wind farms, was supposed to facilitate the supply of electricity to North African countries. Around

15% of theEU’s demand wasto be met from North African sourcesafter 2050. This was the initiative of a physicist anda specialist in the area of energy, Gerhard Knies from the Club of Rome and Deutsches Zentrum fur Luft und Raumfahrt. The DESERTEC foundation, followed by the DESERTEC Industrial Initiative and the DESERTEC University Network, with thirteen German shareholders, was subse­ quentlyestablished. In 2011,there were21associationsfrom eight countries and 34 as­ sociated partners (Ruchser, 2013,p. 143).

Large German corporations,such as RWE,Siemens, Bosch and theMunchenerRiick insurance company became involved inthese projects. Apartfromthat, some German

businesses were actively operating in North Africa on their own. RWE was planningto

erecta solar power plant and wind farm in Morocco, and a solar power plant in Egypt.

Germans held intensive talks with individualstates.In January2012, the“Energy Part­

nership”was agreed by Germany and Tunisia. This initiative was officially commenced

in Berlin in January 2013. In July 2013, GermanMinister of Economy,Philipp Rosier, and his Moroccan counterpart, FouadDouri, signedanother bilateralagreement on en­ ergy partnership with Morocco (Un Partenriat,2013).

The DESERTEC project invited extensive criticism, though. The criticism con­ cerned the fact thatchangeableweatherconditions would makethepowersupply inef­

fective. The power plants and installations would operate in a politically unstable region, where expensive equipmentcould becomethe target of terrorist attacks. The

pricesof renewable energy would be considerably higher, becoming completely unat­ tractiveforpoor North African countries. All theArab stateshad bureaucratic barriers and legal regulations thathindered business activity in thisarea. Therewere alsofears that a rapidpopulationincrease in these countries could leadto increased localdemand

for electricity, and DESERTEC bosses feared that,instead ofgenerating profit, their project would have to betreated asacertain form of aid toNorth Africa.

Similar to Germany, France also became involvedin corresponding projects. In­

spired by the French government, in 2010 the Medgrid consortium was established to

specialise in the construction ofa high-voltage network and transmission linesbetween

Europe andNorth Africa. Theseinitiatives enjoyed thesupport of the European Union.

The cost of alltheseventureswas estimated at400 bln euro,50 bln of which was allo­

cated to the constructionof transmissionlines. The Mediterranean SolarPlan (MSP)

alone was planned to produce 20gigawatts of power by2020, including 3-4 gigawatts

from photovoltaic cells, 5-6 - from windfarms and 10-12 - from solar powerplants. In 2011, the European Commission became actively involved inthe implementation of these plans within the EuropeanNeighbourhoodPolicy,publishing the document “EU responseto the ArabSpring: new package of support for North Africa andMiddle

East,” which promised economic support for these states, for the Erasmus Mundus


ropean Commission supported the project by Morocco, Germany, France, Italy and Spain to build a thermosolar installation in Morocco, for 600 mlneuro, to transmit elec­ tricity to Europe. Theofficial agreement withMoroccan government was postponed, however, becauseEU countrieslacked consensus on acommon energy policy.

The globaleconomic crisis and financial crunchin the euro zone considerably re­ ducedFrench and German interest intheMediterranean. Perhaps withthe exceptionof Tunisia, theArabrevolutions didnot inspire hopes that the situation woulddevelopin the directiondesired by these twocountries and the entire EU.The Union for the Medi­

terraneanhad no achievements as a forum of internationaldialogue. FormerFrench Minister of Foreign Affairs,Alain Juppe, addressed aparliamentary question askedin the national Assembly in June 2011, saying that the organisation would remain inactive

aslongas there wasno progress in Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations. Thereactiva­

tion of the 5+5 group was more a markof the UE’s impotence and escapefrom the problems of theMiddle East.Germany continued to believe thatthe Unionfor the Med­ iterranean asanelement of the European NeighbourhoodPolicy was promising.Berlin declared itssupport for North Africa ontheassumptionthat in the past Germany did not

haveany negative experience in contactswith Arabnations. They had cooperated with regimes there, but nottothe sameextent asFrance. The German attitude to Israel and

Palestineiscumbersome, however. TheGermaneconomy has the enormous advantage of enjoying great respect in North Africa.Germany believesthat, after thetransforma­

tion of theformerGDR andthe countries of theformerSoviet bloc, it has extensiveex­ perience in economicand social reformswhich should be takenadvantageof. Together

with France, Germany can exert an advantageous impact on the transformation in

North Africa, because they have similar outlooks on economic operations inthisre­

gion,in particular in the area of energy, andthey also care aboutcurbing illegal immi­ grationto the EUand combating terrorism (Jaureguy-Naudin/Cruciani,2013, p. 143-160;

Kłosowski, 2013).


Albioni R., (2008), The Union for the Mediterranean initiative. A view from Sothern Europe,

“Documenti IAI”,

Antwort der EU auf den arabischen Frühling: neues Unterstützungspaket für Nordafrika und den Nahen Osten (2011), European Commission - IP/11/1083 27/09/2011,

rapid/press-releaseIPT 1 -1083_de.htm.

Baszkiewicz J. (1999), Historia Francji, Wrocław-Warszawa-Kraków.

Berschens R., Rinke A. (2008), Paris verprellt Berlin mit Mittelmeerunion, “Handelsblatt” of 6.02.2008.

BrösslerD. (2012), Westerwelle im "Munsterlanddes Wandels’’, “SüddeutscheZeitung” of 9.01.2012.

Cholewa M. (2008), Francuska dyplomacja w okresie prezydencji w Radzie Unii Europejskiej

(lipiec-grudzień 2008), “Biuletyn Międzynarodowy Instytutu Nauk Politycznych i Stosun­ ków Międzynarodowych Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego”, no 23, c/document_library/get_file?uuid=f8033c3f-223d-478e-bda6-5cbabb83367e&groupld= 3905854.


Conférence ministérielle de I’Union pour la Méditerranée sur le renforcement du rôle des femmes dans la société (2013), sterial-conference-on-strengthening-the-role-of-women-in-society/.

Czapliński M. (1992), Niemiecka polityka kolonialna, Poznań.

Déclaration commune du sommet de Paris pour la Méditerranée Paris, 13 juillet 2008, Demesmay C. (2008), L’Allemagne face à l’Europe de Nicolas Sarkozy, “Politique étrangère”, no 2. Discours sur le thème de l’Union de la Méditerranée, Palais royal Marshan de Tanger (Maroc),-Mardi

23 octobre 2007,


Die Zukunft Europas liegt im Süden (2007), “Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung” of 8.02.2007.

Deubner Ch. (1999), Frankreich in der Osterweiterung der EU 1989 bis 1997, “Politische Studien”,

no 363.

EU: Merkel bremst Sarkozy bei Mittelmeerunion aus (2008), “Der Spiegel” of 4.03.2008.

European Union, Trade in goods with MEDA (Excluding EU) - (Mediterranean Countries In The Euro-MediterraneanPartnership (2014), ber/tradoc_l 17658.pdf).

Financement de la campagne de Sarkozy: la voix accusatrice de Kadhafi (2014), “La Libération” of


Gadi Ayad (2011), The Future ofEuro-Mediterranean Regional Cooperation: The Role of the Union

for the Mediterranean. European Institute of the Mediterranean, Barcelona.

Godin E., Vince N. (eds.) (2012), France and the Mediterranean. International Relations, Culture

and Politics, Oxford-Bem-Berlin-Bruxelles-Frankfurt am Main-New York-Wien.

Hauser G. (2014), Die neue Nachbarschaftspolitik der Europäischen Union in der Mittelmeerregion

- Herausforderungen für die EU, in: M. Staack, D. Krause, Europa als sicherheitspolitischer

Akteur, Opladen-Berlin-Toronto.

Herzinger R. (2011), Libyen: Die deutsche Außenpolitik hat sich gründlich blamiert, “Die Welt” of 22.08.2011.

Hollande gegen Mittelmeerunion (2012), “Tagesblatt” of 18.07.2012.

Jauréguy-Naudin M., Cruciani M. (2013), Deutschland, Frankreich und die Energiepolitik, in: M. Koopmann, Neue Wege in ein neues Europa: die deutsch-französischen Beziehungen nach dem Ende des Kalten Krieges, Baden-Baden.

Jünemann A. (2005), Zehn Jahre Barcelona-Prozess. Eine gemischte Bilanz, “Aus Politik und

Zeitgeschichte”, Bd. 45/2005.

Kłosowski J. (2013), Unia na rzecz Regionu Morza Śródziemnego w martwym punkcie?, “Biuletyn

Instytutu Zachodniego”, no 131.

Kornelius S. (2008), Neues Etikett für eine alte Politik. Wie es Angela Merkel schaffte, Nicolas Sarkozy vom Plan einer eigenständigen Mittelmeerunion abzubringen, “Süddeutsche Zeit­ ung” of 6.03.2008.

Koszel B. (2003), Rola Francji i Niemiec w procesie integracji Polski ze Wspólnotami Euro- pejskimi/Unią Europejską, Poznań.

Koszel B. (2008), Uprzywilejowane partnerstwo. Rząd Angeli Merkel (CDU/CSU-SPD) wobec

integracji Turcji z Unią Europejską, “Rocznik Integracji Europejskiej”, no 2.

Kumoch J. (2011), Idea Unii Śródziemnomorskiej - próba powstrzymania europejskich ambicji


Kruk A. (2011), Interests, Expectations andfears of Germany in the Face of the Arab Spring, in: The Arab Spring, ed. B. Przybylska-Maszner, Poznań.

Marines S., Thorel J. (2013), Dissonanzen bei der Union für den Mittelmeerraum- Politische

Konflikte und diplomatische Lösungen, in: Die Konsenswerkstatt. Deutsch französische

Kommunikations- und Entscheidungsprozesse in der Euroapolitik, eds. C. Demesmay,

M. Koopmann, Baden-Baden.

Marten S. (2008), Le couple franco-allemand: nécessaire mais pas suffisant, “Questions inter­

nationales”, mai-juin.

Nowak A. (2010), Prezydencja hiszpańska 2010. Śródziemnomorskie priorytety a polityka wschodnia

Unii Europejskiej, “Analizy Natolińskie”, no 5.

Merkel und Sarkozy einigen sich über Mittelmeerunion (2008), “Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung” of 4.03.2008.

Oświadczenie w sprawie "Procesu Barcelońskiego: Unii Śródziemnomorskiej ” (2008), Rada Euro­

pejska w Brukseli 13-14 marca 2008 r. Konkluzje prezydencji,

Parmentier F. (2011), Powrót Południowego Sąsiedztwa, file:///C:/Users/Gabinet/Desktop/ new_3_4_2011 164_powrot_poludniowego_sasiedztwa%20( 1 ).pdf.

Partnerstwo na rzecz demokracji i wspólnego dobrobytu z południowym regionem Morza Śród­ ziemnego (2012), third_countries/mediterranean_partner_countries/rx0024_pl.htm.

Praussello F. (ed.) (2011), Euro-Mediterranean Partnership in theAftermath of theArabian Springs,


Pressekonferenz von Bundeskanzlerin Angela Merkel und dem französischen Staatspräsidenten Nicolas Sarkozy (Paris, 6. Dezember 2007),


Radke K. (2012), Mehr gezappelt als bewegt. Die bilateralen Beziehungen aus deutscher Perspektive,

“Dokumente. Zeitschrift für den deutsch-französischen Dialog”, no 1.

Ratka E. (2010), Un premier bilan mitigé. LAllemagne et l’Union pour la Méditerranée,

“Dokumente. Zeitschrift für den deutsch-französischen Dialog”, no 4.

Ratka E. (2014), Deutschlands Mittelmeerpolitik. Selektive Europäisierung von Mittelmeerunion bis

zum Arabischen Frühling, Baden-Baden.

Rezolucja Euro-Śródziemnomorskiego Zgromadzenia Parlamentarnego w sprawie oceny procesu barcelońskiego w przededniu dziesiątej rocznicy jego istnienia przyjęta w dniu 15 marca 2005 r. w Kairze (Egipt),

Sarkozy et financement Kadhafi: Me Ceccaldi répond à Yves Thréard (2014), “Le Figaro”

of 10.03.2014.

Sarkozys Mittelmeer- Union Merkel sieht Sprengstoff für EU (2008),


Rossa D. (2010), Partnerstwo śródziemnomorskie i Unia dla Morza Śródziemnego jako filary bezpieczeństwa w regionie, “Zeszyty Naukowe Akademii Marynarki Wojennej”, no 2.

Ruchser M. (2013), Erst Jasmin, dann Fukushima: Wie geht es weiter mit "Strom aus der Wüste ”, in: Europa und der Arabische Frühling, eds. P. Bender, G. Walter, Baden-Baden.

Schäfer (2013), Nordafrika-Politik zwischen Idealen und Interessen Deutschland und Frankreich müssen ihre Unterstützung besser aufeinander abstimmen, “DGAPanalyse”, no 1.

Schmid D. (2007), Méditerranée: le retour des Français?, “Confluences Méditerranée”, No. 63.

Schmid D. (2008), Die Mittelmeerunion - ein neuer französischer Motor für die europäische Mittelmeer-Politik?, “DGAPanlayse”, no 1.


Schumacher T. (2009), Deutschland, die Union für das Mittelmeer und die südliche Nachbarschaft:

Interessen und Perspektiven, “Mediterranes”, no 1, Ausgaben/l-2009/12_pdfsam_Mediterranes_Heft_l.pdf.

Sebald Ch. (2013), Mittelmeerunion: Wunschgebilde oder tragfähige Perspektive?, http://www.treff-,05638. Stark H. (2008), Die französische EU-Ratspräsidentschaft 2008 - zwischen aktuellem Krisen-

menagement und strategischen Weichenstellung, “Integration” no 3.

Unruchen in Nordafrika (2011), “Der Spiegel” of 12.02.2011.

Un Partenariat énergétique entre l’Allemagne et le Maroc (2013), Ambassade d’Allemagne a Rabat, Varwick J. (2011), Unzuverlässiger Bündnispartner. Ist Deutschland aussenpolitisch isoliert?, “Inter­

nationale Politik-on line” of 23.08.2011, unzuverlassiger-bundnispartner-2/.

Wójcik A. (2008), Jakie doświadczenia ze współpracy w regionie Morza Śródziemnego mogą być przydatne w konstruowaniu Strategii UE dla regionu Morza Bałtyckiego?, “Biuletyn Analiz

UKIE”, no 19, gia_Morza_Baltyckiego/A. Wojcik.pdf.

Zgromadzenie Parlamentarne Unii dla Śródziemnomorza (ZPUŚ) / Eurośródziemnomorskie Zgromadzenie Parlamentarne (EMPA) (2014), tion=com_content&view=article&id= 146 5 3 : eurorodziemnomorskie-zgromadzenie-parla- mentame-empa&catid=3 9&Itemid=703.

Zwei Jahre Union für das Mittelmeer. Antwort der Bundesregierung auf die kleine Anfrage der Fraktion der SPD (2010), Deutscher Bundestag. Drucksache no 17/2523, http://dip21.bundes-


The Union for the Mediterranean, established in 2008 by France, was intended to strengthen French influence in the region. After Germany intervened, this exclusively French project was expanded to encompass the entire European Union, which provided financial support from the European Neighbourhood Policy. The immense political, economic and social problems facing the south of the Mediterranean prevented the Union for the Mediterranean from operating effi­ ciently there. Under the circumstances of the crisis in the euro zone, and after the Arab revolu­ tions, France and Germany intend to continue to support the démocratisation process in the region and they have come up with numerous initiatives, especially in the field of energy, cross-cultural dialogue and educational projects. They also support measures to combat terror­ ism and curb illegal immigration into the European Union.

Key words: France, Germany, Union for the Mediterranean, European Union

Unia dla Śródziemnomorza w polityce Francji i Niemiec


Utworzenie przez Francję w 2008 r. Unii dla Śródziemnomorza miało ugruntować jej wpływy na obszarze Morza Śródziemnego. Wskutek interwencji Niemiec ekskluzywny projekt francuski rozciągnięty został na całą Unię Europejską, która wsparła ją środkami finansowymi


z programu Europejskiej Polityki Sąsiedztwa. Olbrzymie problemy polityczne, gospodarcze i społeczne występujące w obszarze południowej części Morza Śródziemnego uniemożliwiły Unii dla Środziemnomnorza skuteczne działania. W warunkach kryzysu strefy euro i po rewolu­ cjach arabskich Francja i Niemcy zamierzają nadal wspierać proces demokratyzacji tego regionu i występują z licznymi inicjatywami, zwłaszcza w dziedzinie energetyki, dialogu międzykultu­ rowego i programów edukacyjnych. Wspierają działania na rzecz walki z terroryzmem i ograni­ czenia nielegalnej emigracji do Unii Europejskiej.




Related subjects :