Reject quack remedies. Why discuss Tunisia again? All the news media are dealing with the country in depth, many of them sending out special correspondents, and numerous political figureheads and commentators are expanding on the attitude the EU should take to this partner country in the future. It is the content of some of these recommendations that is worrying. The EU's attitude should be governed by the general guideline that anything that would weaken or slow the momentum of the European project should be seen as dangerous. Irrespective of the intentions, it is not by weakening the EU and its future development that Tunisia's problems will be solved.
The first quack remedy recommended is to suggest that Tunisia joins the EU. This idea has no justification from any angle, whether geographical, historical or anything else. The EU is a European project and must remain European. The resounding failure of the Union for the Mediterranean (UfM ) as initially launched, with some of the EU on the one hand and non-EU Mediterranean countries on the other, should demonstrate this beyond a doubt. Any further attempts to tinker with the UfM have not been able to remedy the initial error. As the EU moves towards a radical extension of economic governance and consolidation of cohesion, it is not in any position to become less European.
Protect cooperation. Now to my second comment. In relations with the rest of the world, the EU has to respect the choices they make about how to run their own society, but that does not mean that the EU actually agrees with them. Far from it - at times, the EU has to take a stand over defending human rights in the countries in question. What is the right balance between cooperation on the one hand and political reservations on the other? Remaining in the Mediterranean, and ignoring juggernauts like China and the like for the moment, the EU is required to have relations with Libya, Egypt and Tunisia, of course, without these ties being seen as support for the political regime of the country. In other words, should the EU respect a country's domestic set-up (even if it disapproves of it) and cooperate with the country? Not to mention the fact that the EU is useful if not downright crucial for the economy of the countries in question, and that some of their inhabitants would be in an even worse situation without EU aid and EU initiatives. It is well-known that Tunisia has been in negotiations for a long time to get “advanced economic partnership” status with the EU, trying to combine economic cooperation with pressure for a more relaxed regime. The EU has always allowed opponents of the Ben Ali regime to live and be free to act in the EU, despite protest from the official Tunisian authorities.
Tackle terrorism. Third comment. The EU's attitude is also determined by political considerations related to tackling terrorism. Ben Ali's regime was seen at one point, in France at least, as a block to radical Islam that might have started to spread on the fringes of Europe. It is true that the existence of such a risk is widely challenged and apart from a few sectarian fanatics, most representatives of religious movements in Tunisia are moderate and want to help introduce a genuinely democratic system (but with some reservations about equality between men and women). The question remains to be answered - is there really the danger of a fanatically Islamic system or mindset taking hold in Tunisia?
Time will tell whether these doubts are well-founded. To my mind, however, it is a simple fact that the EU has to defend its own character and only an EU growing in strength will be able to help communities that rebel against repressive regimes.
(F.R./transl.fl)