Tunisia in difficulty. Within the context of the “Arab Spring” for freedom and democracy, only Tunisia has been able to push forward its transformation process and now has a government that is not opposed within the country and is recognised by the outside world (see this column yesterday). This government, however, has to tackle an unexpected development: the flight towards Europe of a considerable number of young people who will not have the right of asylum because they will be classed as illegal immigrants or “economic migrants”. Why do they have no other goal but to leave their country just as it has won its freedom? Why is the democratic government doing all that it can to prevent them from returning? The answers are quite obvious: many young Tunisians believe that they have a better chance of finding fulfilling work and a future in Europe, and the Tunisian authorities are aware that job creation in Tunisia is a long-term undertaking.
These authorities are not concealing the seriousness of the problem. They had hoped that growth this year would be between 4 and 5% but the direct and indirect repercussions of the Libyan conflict have dashed this hope. Since January, tourism has fallen by 40%, with immediate ramifications on maritime and air transport. A senior lecturer from the University of Tunis declared: “People living in the south of the country have nothing left to live on”. It is true that the country is expected to recover the wealth that previously disappeared into the pockets of its corrupt leaders but for the time being, the losses (given the economic slowdown and social demands) are still far greater. In June, 80,000 new university graduates will be added to the queue of jobseekers. The budget deficit is still sustainable but for how much longer?
A starting point. The observations made above confirm an often forgotten truth: freedom and democracy are just a starting point. The creation of solid economic foundations is an entirely different matter. The EU itself is made aware of this fact on a daily basis, particularly with the upsets affecting the eurozone - freedom and democracy function appropriately throughout Europe but certain member states are obliged to apply austerity programmes and introduce considerable reforms in order to remain in this zone. Building democracy is crucial but it is not sufficient on its own. The EU is lending support and will continue to do so but illegal immigration cannot constitute a basis for this support.
Nonetheless, Tunisia is the most encouraging and positive example of the transition to democracy. What happens in Syria and elsewhere (Yemen, Bahrain, etc) is uncertain and cannot be forecast. With the outcomes in Egypt and Libya still unknown, it is, in my opinion, very unlikely that other Arab countries will follow the path that Tunisia has taken. There will be concessions made to demands made by the people almost everywhere, as well as innovation and more freedom but there will not be any regime change.
The EU must protect its identity. The EU must review its approach towards its relations with Mediterranean third countries and Arab countries as a whole, by taking into account the development and aspirations of each of these countries. The Union for the Mediterranean has always been fictitious, because non-European countries bordering the Mediterranean have never themselves thought of developing the necessary conditions for putting the stated priority objective into practice, namely, a free trade zone. This can never be achieved as long as these countries maintain and often strengthen the barriers between themselves. The effort made by France to preserve the façade of this project is an exercise in semantics but does not really mean anything. Between the EU and non-EU Mediterranean countries everything is possible, but these possibilities should be based on the real situation and aspirations of each and every country in the region.
What should be said about the wild imaginings of certain superficial commentators (even if they are university dons) who consider that a generous gesture should be made to Tunisia by offering EU accession? What about all the other non-European countries? A watered-down EU entity with ill-defined borders, consisting of Turkey and therefore extended to the heart of Asia, would no longer be able to manage its common policies. Neither would it be able to help poorer regions make progress or have institutions capable of wielding effective power. The EU would have no personality or rules and would be inefficient internally and incapable of helping other countries.
In concrete terms, the European Commission will be presenting its proposal in May on updating EU neighbourhood policy and the distribution of funding between the North and South. This will be a delicate balancing act because member states do not all share the same priorities and budgetary policy must be strict. Commissioner Stefan Füle has announced that the quality of progress made by beneficiary countries towards democratic transition will be taken into account. This is an interesting piece of information. (F.R./transl.fl)