Close up: The Paris offer By Salama A Salama Since Sarkozy came up with his "Union for the Mediterranean" proposal, Arab sceptics have been questioning the motives for such a move. Some said that the union was a revival of the Barcelona process; namely an attempt to integrate Israel into the region before peace is reached. Others argued that the whole thing was a European attempt to keep culturally backward and terror-leaning Arabs from seeking employment in its midst, while offering Israel a backdoor to European decision-making. Colonel Gaddafi led the foray, suggesting that Europe was trying to divide us and undermine both the Arab League and the African Union. Europe is offering us crumbs while seeking to exploit our wealth and resources, he suggested. The Algerians were said to have their reservations, and the Moroccans seemed to have quite a few misgivings. A mini-summit in Tripoli concluded that the whole thing was suspicious, to say the least. Most of the union's decision-making would be in Europe's hands and we would have no say and no benefit to mention, many concluded. France wasn't discouraged by Gaddafi's views. It continued to send envoys to Damascus, Cairo and Algiers, and set 13 July for a summit in Paris. For now, Europe seems determined to push ahead with the union and we remain in two minds. But most likely, we'll all show up in Paris, including our most vocal sceptics. We'll show up with no plans, no answers, no counter- proposals, and little if any clue what the whole thing is about. This is quite unfortunate, for there are gains to be made and nothing wrong in cooperating with our northern neighbours. There is a right way and a wrong way for dealing with such proposals. The right way would be to examine them on merit and see what benefits they may entail. The wrong way would be to get paranoid about it, wonder about its hidden motives, then compete over who gets what jobs and who hosts which agency. For now, we're too stuck in our conflict with Israel to think straight about Europe. The union proposal -- I am not even sure "union" is the right word -- is not about the Arab-Israeli conflict. For all practical purposes, it is an arrangement involving some industrial and economic projects, all with clear and specific goals: reducing pollution in the Mediterranean, encouraging solar energy projects, regulating fishing, fighting desertification, and resolving water shortages. These are all matters that concern Spain and Italy just as much as Tunisia and Egypt. The problem of immigration is something that can and should be alleviated through the creation of job opportunities in our labour-exporting countries -- a goal that the union can help achieve. It would be preferable for the Union for the Mediterranean to be assessed on its merits. It would be best to view this union as an arrangement that is unencumbered by political machinations, both covert and overt. Both Europe and the Arabs can benefit from specific economic and technological projects. Both Europe and the Arabs have much to discuss and can use a forum to help them promote their common goals. A union that proposes regional projects and leaves it up to each country to join them is not something to scoff at. Israel should not be used as an excuse to undermine such an effort. We need to engage in cooperation in the Mediterranean. And we can do it, case-by-case and with full freedom of choice. If we go about it the right way, the union may turn out to be a good thing after all.
