Other than that, indeed very much remains unresolved including where the secretariat-general of the union is to be based, or for that matter, which country will be the first to chair the new union.

In the greater scope of things, those are perhaps trivial details that can easily be agreed upon. The more pertinent questions are if the Union for the Mediterranean is intended to play a political role in the region, particularly in the Middle East, where numerous crises are brewing.

Is it meant to tackle the region's problems in tandem with the European Union, or is it meant to supplement the EU?

Will the new union have the clout it needs for example to mediate in the Palestinian-Israeli dispute, without the political support of the United States? Can any of the European countries or those of the Mediterranean basin be in a position to provide Israel the safety guarantees it requires from the United States before it can reach any lasting peace agreement with the Palestinians? Similarly, are any of those 42 other countries capable of applying pressure on Israel, to nudge it along into a peace treaty, the way Washington might? Again, the answer is unlikely.

Or, is the Union for the Mediterranean intended to appease Turkey, if the French president succeeds in keeping Ankara out of the Brussels club?

But if the Syrian and Israeli leaders who participated in the meeting avoided talking to each other, at least directly, (a dialogue between the two did take place, albeit via Turkish intermediaries) Sarkozy can walk away from the first reunion with a feather in his cap. Apparently, President Bashar Assad of Syria promised his Lebanese counterpart, General Michel Suleiman, that Syria and Lebanon would exchange diplomatic missions, something Damascus has long been reluctant to do.