• IA News
• Events

What will become of the UfM (Union for the Mediterranean)? Following its creation in 2008, the Amadeus Institute dedicated its first MEDays forum to this new and ambitious organization.

This year marks the second anniversary of the UfM, and it is worthwhile to examine the progress made and difficulties faced by this organization.  The Amadeus Institute has chosen to address the subject by re-contextualizing it and focusing on the more sensitive points, namely, the role of the secretariat and funding. What can the secretariat do in the face of new obstacles? Is the problem of funding being resolved? The future of the UFM depends on the answers to these two major questions.

Download the analysis

1. Difficulties facing the ufm and challenges for the new secretariat

1.1. A difficult transition for the co-presidency

Two years after its inception on July 13, 2008 in Paris, the UfM is preparing to change the rotating co-presidency, and not without difficulties. On the Northern side is Spain, which was the president of the European Union after France. This “coincidence” marks the influence of Brussels on the UfM.  At the moment, however, the situation is unclear, in part due to the lack of official communications. Given the continuing silence of the Spanish representatives, we might look closer at some of the speculation regarding the new UfM co-presidency.

Some suggest that there would be two options for the Northern presidency: either Spain or the European Commission (EC). Were the second option to become a reality, it would most likely mean greater transparency and better complementarity for Euro-Mediterranean politics (UfM and European Neighborhood Policy). On the other hand, the UfM might be pushed to the background by the EU—and thus be relegated to the status of just another unrealized policy. In this vein, we might fear that the EU will privilege the interests of European countries, many of whom do not border the sea, and are not truly interested in the Mediterranean, over those of the countries residing in the South. Even if a country from the South presided over the UfM alongside the EC, the political weight and powers of decision-making would tilt dangerously in favor of the North.  This would repeat one of the greater errors of the EuroMed partnership. It remains desirable for a country from the South, directly concerned with Mediterranean issues, to hold a co-presidency with a country from the North.

The above is, of course, mere speculation. We still need more information about the new co-presidency, particularly given the considerable challenges that the two presiding countries will face. On the Southern side, the situation is perhaps even more obscure: due to continuing disagreement amongst members, the successor to the Egyptian presidency has yet to be announced.