Talk:Union for the Mediterranean

Roman Empire

Wow...

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.115.63 (talk) 16:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice. Reminds me of this: "Imperium sine fine dedi" - Virgil, Aeneid

("...to the Romans, I grant them dominion without end." -Jupiter) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.116.110 (talk) 01:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Possible Mauritanian Membership?

Granted pretty much all of this is pure speculation because very little has yet to come out on any hypothetical Mediterranean Union, but couldn't Mauritiania possibly become a member? It has strong ties to the other Maghreb countries and is very involved in the problem of illegal migration which presumably would be at the center of MU activities. Nicolasdz 17:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Well Mauritiania isn't on the med rim, although Jordan isn't either. If you can find something that mentiones it in connection with the MedU then yes. When it comes down to it Mauritiania may well be allowed to join for political reasons, but I think think Sarkozy is thinking along those lines, its more strategic med stuff, like immigration control, which Mau isn't so connected to. - J Logan ^t/_c: 18:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

If Sarkozy wants to deal with immigration effectively, which is something Spain will likely expect to see, Mauritania will be part of the MU. Since nothing official has yet been proposed by Sarkozy, I think that looking at NATO's Mediterranean Dialogue provides a good list of countries to consider for membership, and that list includes Mauritania. Merlin0085 13:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

We have had names mentioned before, look at a few of the articles, I think the IHT had most. - J Logan ^t/_c: 14:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Mauritania is shown on the map in the article as being a proposed member - is this correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.100.250.218 (talk) 12:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

German Reaction

If anyone can find an official German response to the proposal, please reference it in the article. I've looked, but all I can find in English are private denunciations (I don't speak German). Nicolasdz 17:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Why Germany exactly? I can't see anything myself, I don't think the presidency has commented. There may be something once a more detailed proposal is put on the table, often they don't like commenting on speculation. Unless of course it is directed at you, like with Turkey. - J Logan ^t/_c: 18:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Lybian reaction

I couldn't find anything about Kadhafi being "outraged" about this proposal, but I found some references for the visit in Tunisia and Algeria. Kromsson 19:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The part about "outraged Libya" was added by User:Hakeem.gadi. Maybe we should ask him. Sijo Ripa 20:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find it either, I've left a note on his talk page. - J Logan ^t/_c: 11:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Balkans?

Why aren't the countries boardering the Adriatic sea possible members? Aaker 09:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Sarkozy didn't tell everything, but I think this is because of the relative instability of this region. Kromsson 11:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

ALso I think it is generaly to do with the issues it will cover, migration for example is between north africa and southern EU, they don't waste much time going up the Adriatic to live in Bosnia. - J Logan ^t: 11:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The Western Balkan states are all considered potential EU members by the EU or are already negotiating their entry. Including them into this much looser ME might have been understood as a signal that the EU attempts to lessen their status. Their priority is membership; afterwards they will be automatically part of this new club. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.96.30.117 (talk) 10:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

EU Union

after reading the article i sensed that the Mediteranean Union is a European Union organization that has invited in some of its ousthern neighbors, i think it is neccessary to keep the EU out of this article, or perhaps include a section for its role in the Creation of the Mediteranean Union, i dont find any mentioning the Arab League!!

it has nothing to do with the other leagues and Unions..

Ελληνική Δημοκρατία--82.208.200.109 (d) 9 août 2009 à 15:32 (CEST)Σ--82.208.203.102 (d) 13 août 2009 à 18:27 (CEST) Ως Μεσόγειος είναι γνωστή από τα αρχαιότατα χρόνια μεγάλη κλειστή θάλασσα--Ἡρακλῆς (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC) KROZ ISTORIJU JE POZNATO VIŠE NAZIVA ZA SREDOZEMNO MORE ,EGIPĆANI I SUMERI SU GA ZVALI "GORNJE MORE",U BIBLIJI SE POMINJE KAO "VELIKO MORE", "ZADNJE MORE","FILISTEJSKO MORE",HERODOT GA NAZIVA TAKOĐE "VELIKO MORE" A TUKIDID "HELENSKO MORE"A NAZIV "UNUTRAŠNJE MORE" ILI KASNIJE MEDITERRAN SE NAVODNO PRIPISUJE ARISTOTELU. U SUBOTICI 04.08.2009--82.208.202.73 (разговор) 08:34, 4. август 2009. (CEST)Σ.--82.208.202.57 22:09, 6. kolovoza 2009. (CEST)--82.208.203.102 (d) 13 août 2009 à 21:41 (CEST)--82.208.203.102 19:49, 13 Αυγούστου 2009 (UTC)

Μεσόγειος Θάλασσα--82.208.203.102 19:50, 13 Αυγούστου 2009 (UTC) Ως Μεσόγειος είναι γνωστή από τα αρχαιότατα χρόνια μεγάλη κλειστή θάλασσα,--82.208.203.102 19:55, 13 Αυγούστου 2009 (UTC)--82.208.202.65 (talk) 18:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The whole thing is based upon the idea of the EU and the politics of the EU not extending to Turkey etc. Further more it is the southern EU countries, not European as a whole, who are connected to the project. The EU is only mentioned in here where relevant I'd like to point out, e.g. reasons for Sarkozy's suggestion, comparison as it is based on it and where the EU is already involved (e.g. Barcelona). - J Logan ^t: 16:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You know, there should be infomation found to see if all this idea is just a way of a Christian Europe trying to shun Muslim Turkey from the European Union, offering them something worth dirt in return. For all their talk on tolerance, they seem to hate and fear Muslims, and are very hypocritical. In this way, the US is better, because unless you live in Northern Europe, if you are a Muslim, you are likely going to treated badly. That begs the question though, because Bosnia is majority Muslim, will they ever be able to join the EU.--Lionheart Omega 23:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Bosnia has been promised membership along with the rest of the Western Balkans, including Albania which is majority Muslim. Plus Europe acted with the US in the defence of Muslims in both Bosnia and Kosovo against Christians. I think you are overplaying the religion point here, particuarly as a) Europe has come this far in letting Turkey join (if they didn't want them, why start negotiations) and b) most of Europe is secular now anyway. Yes there is discrimination, but not on the level you are seaking of. On data though, there are loads of analyasis around based on rejecting Turky's membership but last time I looked there hasn't been much on the MedU yet, still theory. - J Logan ^t: 07:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Ελληνική Δημοκρατία--82.208.200.109 (d) 9 août 2009 à 15:32 (CEST)Σ--82.208.203.102 (d) 13 août 2009 à 18:27 (CEST) Ως Μεσόγειος είναι γνωστή από τα αρχαιότατα χρόνια μεγάλη κλειστή θάλασσα--Περικλής (talk) 21:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

As I can see things from Switzerland, the Mediterranean Union's major purpose is to boost northern africa's developpement, and maybe more, as Israel announced it was interested in the project. The thing with Turkey is more like a promise from Sarkozy to the racist part of his electorate, negociations between EU and Turkey didn't stop (nobody else than Sarkozy thought of the Mediterranean Union as a way to keep Turkey out of EU, seems to me.) Whatsoever, we should find some sources for all that stuff, instead of using Wikipedia as a forum. Kromsson 12:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

At the very least then, Turkey will not get into the EU until Mr. Karcher leaves office.--Lionheart Omega 23:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Why do you say that? AKP is pro-European and is supported by Brussels. It is the military which opposes him and the military - guardian of the secular state - is opposed by Brussels as an anti-democratic influence. Pressure from Brussels is the main reason their powers and influence have been curbed. (I know I know not a form, but I'm in politics, I live of discussion - report me) - J Logan ^t: 08:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Turkey belongs to the north

Hello

Turkey belongs to the north side of the mediterranean sea, you only have to see a map.

ciao! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.136.83.185 (talk) 18:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Could still say south of Europe, can also be used in the IR sense. Its only on usage anyway, better word to cover that?- J Logan ^t: 17:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Portugal?

What does Portugal have to do with the Mediterranean Sea? Does anyone know why an Atlantic country have been included in this supranational organization? --83.45.180.18 (talk) 13:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

geo-politics is more politics than geography, its southern Europe - good enough. This isn't an issue for the article though, perhaps you should email Sarko.- J Logan ^t: 17:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

All EU members are by default part of the Union for the Mediterranean, regardless of whether they have a Mediterranean coastline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.175.236.10 (talk) 17:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

French Political Hypocrisy and Turkey

Sarkozy promised his electorate base to prevent Turkey's EU membership and came up with an imaginary union of mediterranean countries. Turkey clearly stated that it will not be part of any such union, as a blow to Sarkozy's wet dream. Additionally, Sarkozy has visions of using the prospective Mediterranean Union as a tool to dominate the internal politics of former colonies of France, namely Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria. With Maghreb states being independent and not given any hopes to join EU, France lost most of its political leverage on the governments of these three states for decades. Sarkozy's Napoleonic visions of gaining control over former imperial territory and vsions of fulfilling his promise to keep Turkey out of EU in order to ride the ultranationalist/racist wave rising in France, brought the Mediterranean Union idea into French politics as a very useful concept. Due to lack genuine support, on the part of France, to bring together Mediterranean countries on a level platform where collaborations can be forged and problems can be discussed, this idea is seen as a result of French political hypocrisy and a mere annoyance rather than an attractive proposal in Turkey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.172.231 (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Gibraltar?

Does anyone with sufficient knowledge on the subject know if Gibraltar will have any involvement in the MU? It doesn't really say much in the article. Thanks. --Gibmetal 77^talk 13:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Read nothing on it, personal opinion would be not - although geographically in the right place it is of minor political importance so I'd doubt it - as I'm sure you know logical things like geography really don't come into politics.- J Logan ^t: 17:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I would have thought it would be of importance when it comes to maritime affairs and trade. In my opinion, politics doesn't have much logic most of the time ;o) --Gibmetal 77^talk 12:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I would guess that Gibraltar is already represented in the organisation through the UK since it is a British Oversea Territory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.14.218.111 (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Turkey is not an ENP country!

Contrary to popular blief, Turkey is NOT an ENP country according to EU's official website:

http://ec.europa.eu/world/enp/documents_en.htm#2

Therefore i have edited this out! It is an EU candidate and a part of the Barcelona process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.68.140.116 (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Plan not abandoned, it's the only thing Turkey will get

According to the following Euronews article, this plan will go on and will be the only thing Turkey will get for now until they liberate Cyprus: http://www.euronews.net/index.php?page=europa&article=475238&lng=1

I proceed to remove the 'abandoned' text and specify the reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.219.85.234 (talk) 02:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I just clicked on the link you provided! - it mentions nothing about cyprus, or that its the only thing turkey will get until it leaves cyprus!? I believe this is your personal view, and should be edited out!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.178.83 (talk) 02:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree : this link don't back up the "plan to leave Turkey out of EU." It only mentionned that Turkey will support the Mediterranean Union only if it is not an alternative to EU. Kromsson (talk) 11:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Mediterranean countries and territories not mentioned

What ever happened to the section that mentioned these and briefly explained why they were not (at least for the time being) included to be part of the Union. Such places like Monaco, Gibraltar, the Balkans. I think it's important to mention these in the article to avoid confusion. --Gibmetal 77^talk 11:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

If you'd take a closer look you'd be able to see that most of the Balkan-countries are represented in the Mediterrenean union, except for those who are not bordering the Meditanean; as for Gibraltar, it's a British Oversea Territory and thus internationally represented by the United Kingdom, which is a member of the new formed organization. Monaco on the other hand is closely tied to French politics when it comes to international representation and the French government still plays a major role in Monegas politics, which would explain why there was no need for the Monegas government to acutally join the union (as comparison: Moaco is also part of the Schengen Agreement without ever acually signing it, since they are often internationally represented by France, beside the fact that they are an independent country.) --MrMister88 (talk) 01:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Relationship with Euromediterranean Partnership

Whilst this was orginally proposed by Sarkozy as a separate organisation to the Barcelona Process it now looks to be fully integrated with that. Therefore, should these two articles be merged together? AndrewRT(Talk) 21:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Results of the meetings

Should someone put up the results of the meetings? 75.0.228.190 (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

There are no results -- the actual details will come at the winter summit.

ahhhh. . . .?

Can someone explain why the UK, germany, the netherlands, finland etc. are inluded in the mediterranian union?? That is just stupid, as far as I can see their only relation to the med is the fact that are share borders with or a close to a country that is touching it, and as for being members of the EU, that hardly warrants membership for a geographically defined organisation. Taifarious1 09:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Ours is not to reason why, ours is but to do and die. In short: Germany felt left out and didn't want France running off with EU funds without them there to vote on what it went to.- J Logan ^t: 10:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It is a German jalousy. Germany, like most northern European nation would heve prefered to be a mediterranean nation. When Sarkozy developped the ide to make an union that include all mediterranean nations Germany was upset not being included, or more precisely Germany was jalous that France was included in a union in wich Germany wasn't. I doubt that France would have reacted the same way if germany was at the origin of the creation of a Baltic union, France would never ask to be included in such an union in which it has nothing to see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.224.59.166 (talk) 13:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The UK should have been in it anyway as a Med power (Gibraltar and the Cyprus bases). Academic now, and this whole Union seems to have been entirely forgotten about anyway. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 23:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The EU did not want double set of institutions. The cost of that would be ASTRONOMIC. So the French president proposed that the whole of EU would be involved in the union of the Mediterranean. Nothing more or less! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.103.205.27 (talk) 09:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Pictures

I'd like to note that one of the maps does show Kosovo, the other one does not. Despite the fact that it is highly controversial whether it is an independent state or not, I suggest we stick to one version. --MrMister88 (talk) 01:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Libya?

The article should explain why Libya is only an observer. Currently it's not clear. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Libya is a member because Gaddafi said he wont join because he thinks it will compromise African Union and Arab League. I saw it on Al Jazeera.195.229.236.213 (talk) 15:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The article still lacks any mention of this. __meco (talk) 12:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Libya should be mentioned somehow (together with a source showing that it is observer) - currently it is only depicted on the map. Alinor (talk) 11:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Black Sea

As far as I know geography, the Black Sea is part of the Mediterranean, just like the Adriatic Sea. Now, where are the Black Sea countries in this union? The Ukraine, Russia, and Georgia (the post-Soviet state, you know), they should all be a part of this union. They are not even mentioned in the article.Mátyás (talk) 09:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they should, but they aren't. This is purely a political division, proved by the fact that Merkel made Germany enter the union, contrary to all common sense. You should also note how some other Mediterranean-based countries aren't members of the organization. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 14:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I just thought that since the MU is being used to try and bring peace to the Near East by having Arab countries and Israel in the same regional organisation where they will have to work together, maybe it could do the same for Russia, Georgia and the Ukraine. Just a thought. And Merkel made it clear that they must be part of the MU because the MU uses EU funds. True, the MU could exist without EU funding and so be independent of the EU, but...--Mátyás (talk) 11:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Population of Bosnia and Herzegovina

The pop. number was wrong. I have putted the one from the article about the country. Though no official census was taken...

I'm not sure whether is this new figure suitable, since it isn't sourced in the BiH article. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 14:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Flag

Where the hell did that come from? What's the source for it?- _J.Logan`^t: 16:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I just SVGed Image:UPM flag-1-.png. The main info came from the french wikipedia. --RaviC (talk) 10:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I found the source. Here it is. I'll add it back. --RaviC (talk) 10:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I have worked at the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs with the EuroMed coordinator, and none of the documents we dealt with had any sort of flag. I do not know where this white and blue flag comes from, but it is not official. The only official "logo" is this double euro sign (commonly called the EuroMed crab). You can have a look at it in the European External Action Service website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.144.89 (talk) 21:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

News

Could someone edit some news, like where it'll have its headquarters, from this article: [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.229.73.179 (talk) 06:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Access to the sea

Romania and Bulgaria are Mediterranean countries, for they are on the Black Sea, and Jordan and Mauritania are just not on the Mediterranean. Jordan has a bit of coast in the Gulf of Aqaba, which is in the Red Sea, and Mauritania is on the Atlantic.--Mátyás (talk) 08:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The black sea is not the mediterranean, even if both are connected. Red sea or Atlantic ocean are also connected to the mediterranean, that does not mean they are part of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.224.59.166 (talk) 13:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Well then what is the big difference with the Adriatic? It is also only connected to the Med, and you wouldn't think that Croatia isn't a Mediterranean country.Mátyás (talk) 14:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The difference: the Adriatic Sea is always considered part of the Mediterranean, whereas the Black Sea is normally not - just check the square miles given for Mediterranean Sea. But is this of any importance to this Article? The Union does include anyhow the whole European Union, so having or not having a coast should be no criterium. And yes, there are countries which are considered always Mediterranean not having a coastline on this sea: Portugal for instance. This is too much subject to short-lived changes of political frontiers - was Serbia a Mediterranean country up to 2006 because it was united with Montenegro and than stopped being it? Would Bosnia stop being one if Croatia took away the 2-3 miles of coast which it retained after the breakup of Yugoslavia? Is Amman less Mediterranean than the Ahaggar mountains? As long as the Union is not about shipping & navigation issues, politicians probably don't waste too much time thinking about coastlines. Are they of any importance here? Ilyacadiz (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Well then I'll have to rephrase my question: is the Black Sea part of the Mediterranean in a strictly geographic sense?Mátyás (talk) 12:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I would definitely say, no, it is not. I just opened by Collins Dictionnary, which is as good a source for what is generally accepted, and it says: "Mediterranean Sea (...) linked with the Atlantic by the Strait of Gibraltar, with the Red Sea by the Suez Canal and with the Black Sea by the Dardanelles, Sea of Marmara and Bosporus, (...) Area (excluding the Black Sea): 2.512.300 sq. km (970.000 sq miles)." That gives us a hint: normally speaking, the Mediterranean Sea does not include the Black Sea, but some geographers might disagree, so the issue is clarified for the reader by this parenthesis. There is no information about the area including the Black Sea.

Under "Black Sea", the dictionnary says: "An inland sea between SE Europe and Asia, connected to the Aegean Sea by the Bosporus, the Sea of Marmara and the Dardanelles (...)". There is no mention of the Mediterranean.

For a geologist, the Mediterranean Basin would probably include the Black Sea, but that is a geological, not geographical, issue. Climatologist have their own definiton: they consider five regions as having a so-called "Mediterranean clima": besides the Mediterranean, these are California, part of South Africa, a strip in Chile and a strip on the west coast of Australia. And for a social anthropologist, having a coastline or not might be just irrelevant, as the term "Mediterranean (culture or gastronomy or lifestyle)" would be defined by a set of many aspects, not only geographicals.--Ilyacadiz (talk) 13:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

More news

Could someone integrate the information from this article ( [2] ) into the page? Swedish pirate (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Update required

Much of this article talks about upcoming events and plans for dates that have long passed. It needs a complete overhaul and update (and parts could do with being translated into English at the same time!). Skinsmoke (talk) 18:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Coming update

As part of the US Public Policy WikiProject, I will be updating shortly this entry for my graduate class on Introduction to the Study of the Arab World, a required course in Georgetown's M.A. in Arab studies. I am currently working in my sandbox with the content that I will be adding. —Preceding undated comment added 23:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC).

Looks good. Two points on what is there now, firstly, don't use level one headers (those with only one equals sign), use 2 and below. Secondly, avoid bullet points in the lede. Besides that, good start! Just sign your posts with 4 tilde's (~~~~), or the sinebot will come after you! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the advice. Just one question, why should not I use bullet points in the lede? Bmw 1986 (talk) 22:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind some criticism:

1. I feel your writting style reads more like a press realease than an encyclopedia article. Phrases like "gather together", "a new phase", and "concrete projects" have a certain amount of PR in them.

Regarding the writing style I wanted to use the terminology employed in the declarations to make it look neutral and accurate. I do believe that the UfM is a new phase in the EuroMed Partnership and that is also the view of the people working in it and many experts. The innovative side of the six projects is that they are not chapters, but "concrete" things. I will also add that English is not my native language as you might have guessed by now, so writing this entry has been kind of a challenge. Bmw_1986

2. What is meant by "multilateral partnership"? The Union for the Mediterranean might be both of these, but dumping them together doesn't really make any sense.

"Multilateral partnership" is used as opposed to bilateral partnerships. Since the 27 EU members states count as one party in all of its foreign policy, specifying that the UfM is multilateral means that it is part of the EU relations with more than one country at the same time. The Association Agreements are an example of bilateral relations between the EU and another country. Regarding whether it makes sense to have a partnership with countries as diverse and distant as Sweden and Mauritania, and even more calling it a "Union", I think that depends on each one's personal opinions, right? Bmw_1986

3. How can Ireland be described as being on the northern shore of the Mediterranean?

Since Ireland is a member of the EU and all the 27 EU member states are part of the Union for the Mediterranean, then Ireland is part of it too. The distinction between northern and southern shores is part of the terminology used in declarations, conferences and workshops regarding euro-med issues. The EU countries are referred to as the northern shore, whereas the rest are the southern one (even though some of them, like Albania or Croatia are actually on the northeastern side of the Mediterranean Sea).Bmw_1986

Personally, I think the main problem with the present article is that it fails to discuss how the UfM has stalled (if not failed completely). The bureacracy may tick on, but fairly basis stuff like selecting the co-presidents just hasn't happened. We need decent sources to back this up. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 17:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I personally think that it is a failure, and even though many people can agree with that, the reality is that it is still working, there countries putting many efforts to the projects and the Secretriat, and fairly enough it has not been dismantled yet. So I think that it falls into a personal opinion to consider it a failure or not. However, throughout the entry you will find some of main critiques against it. The most important are the conflict between the member countries and the fact that the Mediterranean countries are more interested in their bilateral relations with the EU than in this multilateral and inefficient Union. Bmw_1986

References: EUobserver

Note that when citing and referring EUobserver articles, then EUobserver is spelt like in the wikilink here. -Mardus (talk) 02:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

"Meaningless discussion forum"

Berlin united with the Central and Eastern European member states to downgrade Sarkozy’s Union for the Mediterranean into a meaningless discussion forum and inefficient member bloated exercise.

and

Germany’s insistence for the inclusion of all EU member states in the Mediterranean Union would finally prevent it from ever emerging as a meaningful institution.

I found these opinions in the article "Nicolas Sarkozy’s Foreign Policy Should Be Vindicated" in the Atlantic Sentinel. Perhaps this is a perspective that should be offered to the readers of the present article, perhaps if added sources can be brought forth to corroborate this stance? __meco (talk) 11:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

"UfM failure of action in Arab Spring"

A case in point to the above seems to be this report: "Euromed: Study reports UfM failure of action in Arab Spring". __meco (talk) 12:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Union for the Mediterranean. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110719150143/http://www.la-moncloa.es/IDIOMAS/9/Gobierno/News/2010/15112010UnionMediterraneanSummit.htm to http://www.la-moncloa.es/IDIOMAS/9/Gobierno/News/2010/15112010UnionMediterraneanSummit.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Union for the Mediterranean. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070611115441/http://ejpress.org/article/16567 to http://www.ejpress.org/article/16567
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080719170641/http://www.neurope.eu:80/view_news.php?id=76456 to http://www.neurope.eu/view_news.php?id=76456
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111110040437/http://www.maec.es/es/MenuPpal/Paises/Mediterraneo/Documents/conclusiones_%20Ecofin%20%20FEMIP.doc to http://www.maec.es/es/MenuPpal/Paises/Mediterraneo/Documents/conclusiones_%20Ecofin%20%20FEMIP.doc
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111110040456/http://www.maec.es/es/MenuPpal/Paises/Mediterraneo/Documents/conclusiones_INDUSTRY.doc to http://www.maec.es/es/MenuPpal/Paises/Mediterraneo/Documents/conclusiones_INDUSTRY.doc
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111110040459/http://www.maec.es/es/MenuPpal/Paises/Mediterraneo/Documents/conclusiones_Employment%20and%20Labour.DOC to http://www.maec.es/es/MenuPpal/Paises/Mediterraneo/Documents/conclusiones_Employment%20and%20Labour.DOC
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111110040502/http://www.maec.es/es/MenuPpal/Paises/Mediterraneo/Documents/conclusiones_%20SANTE.doc to http://www.maec.es/es/MenuPpal/Paises/Mediterraneo/Documents/conclusiones_%20SANTE.doc
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111110040506/http://www.maec.es/es/MenuPpal/Paises/Mediterraneo/Documents/conclusiones_%20Water.doc to http://www.maec.es/es/MenuPpal/Paises/Mediterraneo/Documents/conclusiones_%20Water.doc
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111110040453/http://www.maec.es/es/MenuPpal/Paises/Mediterraneo/Documents/conclusiones_%20Desarrollo%20Sostenible.doc to http://www.maec.es/es/MenuPpal/Paises/Mediterraneo/Documents/conclusiones_%20Desarrollo%20Sostenible.doc
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111110040411/http://www.maec.es/es/MenuPpal/Paises/Mediterraneo/Documents/conclusiones_Ecofin%207%20July%2009.doc to http://www.maec.es/es/MenuPpal/Paises/Mediterraneo/Documents/conclusiones_Ecofin%207%20July%2009.doc
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111110040430/http://www.maec.es/es/MenuPpal/Paises/Mediterraneo/Documents/conclusiones_%20Women.doc to http://www.maec.es/es/MenuPpal/Paises/Mediterraneo/Documents/conclusiones_%20Women.doc
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111110040427/http://www.maec.es/es/MenuPpal/Paises/Mediterraneo/Documents/conclusiones%20comercion.pdf to http://www.maec.es/es/MenuPpal/Paises/Mediterraneo/Documents/conclusiones%20comercion.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Union for the Mediterranean. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ansamed.info/ansamed/en/news/sections/politics/2012/06/29/UfM-Jordan-hold-co-presidency-south-Med-Sept-_7119399.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.petra.gov.jo/Public_News/Nws_NewsDetails.aspx?Site_Id=1&lang=2&NewsID=73305&CatID=13&Type=Home&GType=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716170747/http://www.ccre.org/news_detail_en.htm?ID=1766 to http://www.ccre.org/news_detail_en.htm?ID=1766

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)