Speech by Mr. Chris Patten, European Commissioner for External Relations
to the European Parliament’s Plenary debate on the Greater Middle East Region

May I first thank the Parliament for making time in what I know is a packed agenda for a discussion of the Mediterranean and the Middle East. The directions we set for our policies in this region in the coming months should be thoroughly discussed and debated here because they involve fundamental decisions on how we are going to develop our relationship with our neighbours.
 
My colleague from the Presidency has explained very clearly the principles in the interim report adopted by EU foreign ministers last week and how, through a series of intensive consultations with the region, they will form the basis of a concrete work programme to be presented to the European Council in June.
 
I would, however, like to underline that we are not starting from scratch: rather we are building on a comprehensive partnership with the Mediterranean countries and a set of bilateral relations with the countries east of Jordan. We will continue to develop our partnership on the basis of these existing instruments. I would add here that Europe is the most significant player. The Community now spends close to €1 billion a year in the region in promoting economic reforms, sectoral reform, institutional and political reform and supporting sustainable development across the region including our specific funds for supporting the Palestinians and for the reconstruction of Iraq. Add the lending from the European Investment Bank to make a total of around €2.5 billion a year. Furthermore, the EU is the biggest trading partner for every country of the region except Jordan.
 
So with this level of involvement, why has economic development and political reform been so slow to take off around the Mediterranean? Why is the human development gap still so great? I think the answer is two-fold. First of all, our approach is a long term one which bears fruit incrementally, but I would venture that working on the basis of partnership, consultation and ownership of the reform process by reformers in the region will give us more solid and sustainable results than any attempts to impose democracy from the outside, whether through persuasion or through the barrel of a gun.
 
But secondly, and crucially, it is important to remember that the Barcelona Process was formulated in an atmosphere of optimism, in the aftermath of the Oslo agreements. Stalemate in the peace process has time and again stymied progress on reform. And recent events are another sad but powerful confirmation that, as our report put it: “it will not be possible to build a common zone of peace, prosperity and progress unless a just and lasting settlement of the conflict is in place.”

Yet again we stand before the smoking ruins of the Peace Process. And this at a time when we had some hope of movement: yesterday’s cancelled Arab League Summit was expected to provide a positive impetus to the peace process by re-launching its Beirut peace initiative.
 
How, I wonder, has Yassin’s assassination helped to improve the security of the Israeli people? How has it contributed to even the stated goal of a peaceful and consensual withdrawal from Gaza? I thought, and I still hope, that we had already seen the worst of the atrocities carried out by suicide bombers. But what we are witnessing lately is wickedness beyond imagination: a frightened adolescent packed with explosives, told that he will go to heaven and sent to kill himself and others at a military checkpoint. It is despicable and cowardly.
 
My broader point is that if we are serious about wanting reform in the Arab World then, as the European Security Strategy states, resolution of the Arab/Israeli conflict remains a strategic priority. Progress cannot be a pre-condition for confronting the challenges of reform, nor vice-versa. But to attempt one without the other is, in my view, a recipe for failure on both counts.
 
I regret, then, that the Arab League summit could not take place as planned, not least because it was expected to adopt a common declaration on domestic reform which would have been an important staging post in developing our common agenda. But working in this part of the world means, almost by definition, to remain hopeful. I hope that our Arab partners will be able to come together again soon and I am certainly prepared to do what I can to help. And I believe that we now have an EU position which we can take into consultations with the region with some confidence of generating new momentum in our relations with our Mediterranean and Middle Eastern neighbours.
 
I also hope that our friends across the Atlantic are recognising that our long-term, consensus-building approach has some value, based as it is, on building common agendas that respect differences of approach in different countries and regions. The Greater Middle East initiative from the US generated controversy in the region, mainly because the objectives appeared to have been set without any real consultation process with the region. In the furore surrounding this, few paid attention to the substance. In content, what they are suggesting could involve the development of US policy towards the region based on the kind of comprehensive and long term engagement which we have been advocating and implementing for many years. We will have much to talk about with them if they are prepared to match this commitment with appropriate levels of resources.
 
Time will tell, but whatever the results, the EU should focus on developing its own strategic partnership with the region. If we are successful, I believe we can make a significant contribution to fighting terrorism in Europe and in the region, one that is as important as the proposals to strengthen the EU’s internal security that you will discuss tomorrow. It will take us another step down the road towards a central objective of the EU’s Security Strategy, namely: “to promote a ring of well-governed countries … on the borders of the Mediterranean with whom we can enjoy close and co-operative relations.”